Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords]

HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Benefit Fraud

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Operation Grocer recently carried out by employment service fraud investigation in East Anglia and Lincolnshire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): This operation was one of two concentrated fraud investigations in East Anglia and Lincolnshire into possible cases of benefit fraud involving people working as crop pickers or in packing houses while claiming unemployment benefit. Claims to benefit in more than half of the 800 cases investigated were withdrawn, saving the taxpayer £400,000.

Mr. Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that carefully targeted unemployment benefit fraud investigations such as Operation Grocer are particularly cost-effective? My hon. Friend has already given the House some figures but can he provide the full figures for 1988–89 of claims for unemployment benefit withdrawn following investigations by his Department and give some indication of the overall savings made?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Targeting these investigations carefully can produce substantial savings for the taxpayer while ensuring that those who are claiming public funds wrongly are prevented from doing so. The claims withdrawn in the year 1988–89 will be in the region of 869,000.

Mr. Hardy: Whilst in no way defending any form of fraud does the Minister accept that if the Government put the same resources into and took the same interest in dealing with tax evasion and tax dodging of all types, the benefit to the country would be enormously greater than that which has followed Operation Grocer?

Mr. Nicholls: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question belies the sentiments that he expressed in the first. This is a question about those who wrongfully claim other people's money. The hon. Gentleman is talking about people who wrongfully try to keep more of their own money. If he is interested in the comparative figures, I can tell him that the cost of investigating Department of Employment fraud in 1987–88 was £15·9 million. The cost of investigating Inland Revenue fraud, which includes individuals and companies, was about £42·4 million.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much long-term unemployment has fallen during the past year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which regions had the sharpest fall in long-term unemployment during the past year; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): In the year to April 1989 the number of people unemployed for 12 months or more fell by 28 per cent. Long-term unemployment has fallen even faster than total unemployment and is now at its lowest level for more than six years. Long-term unemployment has fallen in all regions. The biggest falls have been in East Anglia, the south-east and the west midlands.

Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which demonstrates that Government policies have meant that many more people are working and producing goods and services that people require than are involved in wasteful Government schemes such as those advocated two years ago by the Opposition. Can my right hon. Friend tell me more about the specifics in terms of particular age groups such as those between 18 and 24, those over 25 and those over 50 who have particular problems in employment?

Mr. Fowler: There have been reductions in unemployment in all those age groups. Among 18 to 24-year-olds, long-term unemployment is now down by one third compared to a year ago and has more than halved over the past two years alone. Among the over-25s, long-term unemployment has fallen by a quarter over the past 12 months, and among those aged over 50 there has been a fall of almost 30 per cent. over the past two years.

Dr. Reid: I welcome any fall in any form of unemployment. However, will the Minister recognise that the long-term unemployed in my constituency have been among the worst hit by the decision to close part-time benefit offices? May I bring to his attention Cleland and Newmains where there would be no additional cost to his Department if the offices were run since the local club in Cleland offered its premises free, I have offered my parliamentary premises free and the local community has even offered to pay the taxi fares to those offices for Department of Employment employees? Does he think that the closure is a totally unjustifiable imposition on those who are already suffering through long-term unemployment?

Mr. Fowler: No, I do not think that. I shall certainly think about the hon. Gentleman's example and consider whether anything can be done. What he said at the


beginning of his question was right—that the whole House should welcome the fact that long-term unemployment, which must be regarded as the priority, is falling quickly, and more quickly than unemployment generally.

Mr. Conway: I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend's comments about long-term unemployment. Will he debunk the myth put about by Opposition Members that the fall in long-term unemployment has resulted from people taking part-time jobs? Has not about 85 per cent. of the growth in employment been in full-time employment, in contradiction to the myth propagated by the Opposition?

Mr. Fowler: During the past 12 months there has been a large increase in full-time employment. However, I do not in any way devalue part-time employment, which many people want. As a purely factual statement, I confirm that full-time employment has increased by more than 80 per cent. during the past 12 months.

Mr. Corbett: As the Government have helped to create record unemployment, with the closure of one factory in five in Birmingham, the west midlands and the remainder of the country, can the Secretary of State tell us when unemployment will come down to the level that he inherited in 1979?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman needs to study the comparisons between Britain and the other western European countries, in all of which the unemployment rate rose in 1979 and in the early 1980s. The significant factor in what is happening in this country, especially in the west midlands, is that unemployment is falling faster than it is in any other western European country.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just the fall in long-term unemployment, but the massive rise in employment generally that is very beneficial to citizens of all ages? Is he aware that Lancaster is rapidly running out of industrial land because of the great pressure from businesses wishing to start up? Will he ask his colleagues to assist him in reclaiming what remains of derelict land so that it can be used for industry?

Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly consider any proposals put to me by my hon. Friend because I agree with the thrust of her question. She is right to suggest that the figures show that this country's record in creating new jobs is better than that of any other country in western Europe.

Mr. Fatchett: Is it not true that the Chancellor's only weapon to fight inflation—pushing up interest rates—is deliberately designed to squeeze activity in the economy, which will reduce the number of jobs and therefore increase unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to say what he expects the unemployment figure to be in 12 months' time? Is he aware that most people suspect that there will be an increase in unemployment and that the figures that he cheerfully announced this afternoon will look very different in 12 months?

Mr. Fowler: I will not make such an estimate, and I never have done. At the general election in 1987 the Labour party, in its wildest dreams, said that it would reduce unemployment by 1 million in two years. This Government have reduced unemployment by more than 1

million and there are still more than 600,000 vacancies. There is no reason why unemployment should not continue to fall. The hon. Gentleman cannot bear to hear the good news about unemployment.

Single Market

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research has been commissioned by his Department into the impact of the single market in the north-east.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): Our department has not commissioned research exactly as described in the hon. Gentleman's question. The impact on particular sectors and regions will depend on how successfully individual firms respond.

Mr. Clelland: Should not the Department have conducted such research, given that during the past 10 years of Conservative Government manufacturing industry in the north-east has been reduced massively, with the resultant loss of skills that the Government are doing little or nothing to replace? How can the region be expected to compete on anything like equal terms when more and more people are being employed in service industries and fewer and fewer in making goods to sell outside the region and the country?

Mr. Cope: I noticed the report produced by the Northern Development Company the other day which stated that it had just had its most successful year ever in increasing jobs in the north-east and in investment. That is why business confidence in the north-east is now at its highest level for many years, as another recent survey showed.

Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the projected employment increase for the third quarter of 1989? According to that, the north-east is second only to East Anglia in the projected rate of growth in jobs.

Mr. Cope: The north-east is extremely well placed in the country as a whole and for 1992 and the single market. Unemployment in that area has been falling fast.

Secondary Picketing

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to legalise secondary picketing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: The Employment Act 1980 removed immunity from all secondary picketing, that is picketing away from a picket's own place of work. I have no intention of changing this legislation.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the possibility of any restoration to the trade unions of the potential of secondary action or secondary picketing would be disastrous for industrial relations, for British competitiveness, British jobs and British exports? Does not the fact that the Labour party is making such proposals demonstrate that it has learnt absolutely nothing during the past 10 years?

Mr. Fowler: That is entirely right. Only the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his Labour colleagues want to see a return to the flying picket. The


public regard that as creating indefensible hardship and we are very happy to debate the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on that.

Mr. Heffer: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent pamphlet on industrial relations issued by the Incorporated Catholic Truth Society which states that secondary picketing is a legitimate action on the part of workers to defend themselves from employers who are taking their rights away? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that pamphlet? If he does, he might learn something and discover that it is not just members of the Labour party who feel strongly about the rights of workers in industry.

Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly look at that pamphlet. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will equally consider what a former Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, said about secondary picketing in 1979. He said that he thought that it was entirely wrong that indefensible hardship could be imposed on innocent people. I believe that the great majority of the British public share that view.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way forward for industrial relations in the future to build on the steady improvements of the past 10 years is to encourage collaborative attitudes in industry and in particular, no-strike agreements? Does he further agree that to go back to the 1970s with secondary picketing and intimidation, as the Labour party suggests, would be a betrayal of ordinary working people who would not forgive any party which sought to do that?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. That would also destroy jobs in this country. The bad industrial relations of the 1970s caused job after job to be exported overseas. That is what the Labour party promises if it is ever returned to office.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the International Labour Organisation convention specifically includes a right to sympathetic action and that Britain, under the Thatcherite Government, is the only EC country which now legally bans secondary action? Having distinguished herself in a minority of one over the social charter, will the Prime Minister marginalise herself still further at the Madrid summit in a minority of one over the right to industrial action? When will the Government learn that industrial disputes will not be stopped by ever more repressive legislation or by trying to legalistically to ban the right to strike?

Mr. Fowler: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he wants to remove the protection from the public. What he is about is putting the unions above the law. When the hon. Gentleman was interviewed in The Guardian he was not arguing for the right to strike; he said that secondary picketing would also be sanctioned by his proposals. That is the situation and it is about time that he came clean on that.

Small Businesses

Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report on what steps the Government are taking to help small firms; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cope: There is a wide range of schemes to help small firms gain access to advice, finance and training, and to help those who want to start their own businesses. Those include the small firms service, the loan guarantee scheme, the business expansion scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme and business growth training, launched in April to help small businesses improve their competitiveness and profits through training.

Mr. Harris: As about 1,300 small businesses are set up each week, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an area of considerable success for the Government? However, what help is being made available to those small firms to improve their performance, profitability and skills training under the business growth training scheme announced by his Department in April this year?

Mr. Cope: Yes, there is tremendous growth in the small firms sector which reflects the growth in enterprise in the economy generally. Business growth training consists of five broad options to help small businesses improve their competitiveness, starting with small companies, open learning kits, and so on, and working up to seminars and consultancy projects at the higher levels.

Mr. Cryer: What effect does the current high level of interest rates have on small firms? Will the rate of bankruptcies among small firms, which has reached an all-time record under the Government, be likely to increase or decrease? Lastly, how many of the 2 million jobs that have been lost in manufacturing industry since the Thatcher Government were elected in 1979 have been in small firms?

Mr. Cope: The proportion of small firms in manufacturing is smaller than in the economy generally, but I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question precisely without notice. It is sometimes difficult for large as well as small firms to deal with high interest rates, but many business men realise that they are essential to deal with inflation.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the establishment and growth of small firms often has its roots in self-employment? I believe that the number of self-employed in Britain has grown by 1 million over the past few years, but Italy, with roughly the same population, has 6 million self-employed people. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the help given to small businesses is also given to that seedcorn—the self-employed?

Mr. Cope: Yes, it is. Since 1979 the number of self-employed has increased by rather more than 1 million, but, in making international comparisons, one must bear in mind that the definitions are not always the same and to some extent the higher figures reflect the different tax and social security structures in other countries.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that a number of job opportunities in rural areas have been lost because small firms do not have proper access to training? Does he further agree that in rural areas the Government are already finding it difficult to find people to serve on the training and enterprise councils because people are far better off running their businesses and do not want to he bothered about joining such bodies? Is it not time that the Government took their responsibilities seriously and gave


the proper resources to training colleges and other educational establishments in order to provide decent training for jobs in rural areas?

Mr. Cope: As the hon. Gentleman will find out in a few days' time when we announce the first training and enterprise councils there is no shortage of good people who are only to anxious to contribute to the nation's training effort in that way.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the development of the small firms sector has been remarkable since the bleak days when the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was the Minister responsible for small firms and when they were dying like flies? However, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that high interest rates are beginning to hurt the small firms sector very much and that they will be even more damaging if they go any higher? Will he please ram that point home in his discussions with Treasury Ministers?

Mr. Cope: Yes, I will. I shall also reflect on the fact that responsibility for small firms has been held by distinguished right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Industrial Training Boards

Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage employers to participate in the industrial training boards when these boards no longer raise a statutory levy.

Mr. Nicholls: I have asked the chairman of each ITB to bring forward proposals for future arrangements that command the support of employers in the industry.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister satisfied that employers will respond to the voluntary levy? Does he realise that many will rely on other firms to pay the levy and then poach their apprentices, as I remember the Central Electricity Generating Board doing in respect of British Coal employees in the 1960s?

Mr. Nicholls: While I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, the evidence is to the contrary, because many non-statutory training organisations have the active support of employers. Over the past couple of years, employers in a number of industries that did not have statutory arrangements before banded together to organise training.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to suggest a uniform training levy regardless of the size or needs of the individual company?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to harken to a theme of the White Paper "Employment in the 1990s", in which we made the point that the formalised structure of an industrial training board complete with a levy-raising power does not deliver the goods. That is why we made the proposals we did in the White Paper.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: How does the Minister seriously square his assertion that everything in the training garden will be lovely under the voluntary system with the comments of the Federation of Master Builders—hardly a Labour organisation—that the power of ITBs to collect a levy would not have been given at the time that it was had the voluntary system met national training requirements?
If he thinks that that proposition is out of date, how does he square his belief with his own Manpower Services Commission's research showing that 79 per cent. of employers would not contribute more financial resources voluntarily if asked to do so?

Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman were entirely right in his observations there would be no cause for increasing the number of skilled personnel within the construction industry, because there would be a full complement of trained people willing and available. Clearly that is not the case. We made the point in the White Paper that special circumstances may apply in respect of the construction and engineering industry training boards. Proposals for all ITBs are being received from employers who wish to make particular points, and they will be borne in mind.

Unions (Funds)

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to prevent employers from using the remedy of sequestration of funds against trade unions who refuse to obey court orders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholls: No, Sir. The remedies available to the court in cases involving contempt are a matter for court procedures and rules, not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Carrington: I am greatly relieved at my hon. Friend's answer. Does he agree that sequestration is frequently the only sanction that the courts have to ensure that trade unions obey the law— [Interruption.]—and that any proposal from another political party to abolish sequestration would be a recipe for industrial anarchy? Far from abolishing it, we should consider expanding sequestration to cover the highly organised, so-called unofficial strikes that affected London's transport so badly over the past few months.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right in his comments about sequestration—and proof of that was the degree of sedentary heckling to which he was subjected when he made mention of it. Sequestration is not a new, Tory remedy—which is how the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) frequently attempts to portray it. It is a remedy that goes back as far as the ecclesiastical courts, as a way of enforcing particular court orders. If they could, the Labour party would ensure that that remedy would be left available for all classes of action except those against trade unions for breaking the law. They are in the business of restoring the power of the trade unions to kick the hell out of the public, and obviously my hon. Friend disapproves of that.

Mr. Leighton: Is not the Government's rhetoric about handing the unions back to their members completely misleading, because the draconian step of sequestering union funds has the effect of taking a union away from its members? Is it not the case that British workers have fewer rights than those of any other western industrial nation? Unions find it completely impossible to have lawful disputes, and that is why there is a rash of unofficial action.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. It is not impossible to engage in a lawful dispute: recent events back that up to the hilt. The proposition is perfectly


simple. It is that trade unions should not be above the law but should be subject to it as the rest of us are, and, if they disobey it, subject to the same penalties. The hon. Gentleman's policy—to allow the right of sequestration to be used against anyone except trade unions that break the law—clearly appeals to the hon. Gentleman and his friends, but it does not appeal to the public.

Mr. Greg Knight: Trade unions should indeed obey the law. Can my hon. Friend think of any reason other than party financial gain for the Labour party to wish to place them above the law?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Labour party tries to present itself as a new, squeaky-clean, moderate party, but it is a creature of the trade union movement and is funded by it.

Employment Training

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which local authorities have refused to co-operate with employment training; and what was the date on which his Department received notification in each case.

Mr. Nicholls: A comprehensive record is not held centrally of local authorities which have decided not to participate in employment training.

Mr. McKay: As the Minister knows, the Conservative-controlled Barnet and Merton authorities have refused to take part in the employment training scheme. Is that not further evidence that the scheme was ill-thought-out and ill-funded from its inception?

Mr. Nicholls: I am deeply shocked that the hon. Gentleman should launch an attack on his own Labour-controlled local authority. Barnsley metropolitan borough council is Labour-controlled, a training manager and a member of the main consortium training agency. Moreover, the Barnsley trades council is a training manager as well, in its own right. All the trade unions that were apparently against employment training, including the Transport and General Workers Union, are serving on the trades councils. The decision of two Conservative-controlled authorities not to join the programme, whatever their reasons, is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman should rejoice at the fact that his Labour-controlled authorities do not see it that way.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the valuable contribution made by employment trainees to daycare centres for the elderly and handicapped in and around my constituency? Is he also aware of the insecurity that faces those centres—and the trainees—as a result of the spiteful action of the Labour-controlled Wolverhampton council in withdrawing 400 ET places provided by the Government with £700,000?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right to deplore the spiteful attitude of certain Labour-controlled authorities. If, however, she hears the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) inveighing against employment training, she can take some comfort from the fact that his feelings are not shared by his local authority: Oldham borough council is a training manager under employment training.

Mr. Meacher: It is not the Labour authorities or the trade unions that are refusing to co-operate with ET. Is the Minister not aware that only 13 major companies have signed up nationally, and that only two have filled more than half the contracted number of places? Does he know that, according to the Government's own figures, Habitat has filled none of its 200 places, Mothercare has filled none of its 50 and Remploy has filled none of its 456? Worst of all, only 41 per cent. of the Government's national target number of places have been filled. With a record like that in meeting targets, will the Secretary of State be applying for the Chancellorship in the coming reshuffle?

Mr. Nicholls: Two points need to be made. First, as always, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. It is difficult to know whether he is wrong because he really does not understand or because he chooses not to. Secondly, if accurate, his scenario is extremely bad news for the unemployed. When faced with giving such an account—wrong though it is—all that the hon. Gentleman can do about the plight of the unemployed is to giggle his way through it.
If the hon. Gentleman really wants to know the position, let me tell him what he knows well enough: in addition to the companies that are part of the large companies unit, a whole range of companies are providing placements instead of being training managers in their own right. The hon. Gentleman makes no mention of that. He has also failed to remind us that the programme is still building up, and that other companies will be joining the LCU shortly. As always, what he cannot stand is good news, even when it comes from his own constituency.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that in Harrow the employment training schemes are regarded as so successful that the problem is not that advanced by the Opposition but the fact that uncertainty is being caused because they do not yet know whether they have a contract for next year, or what the budget will be? Will my hon. Friend confirm that they will be dealt with as soon as possible so that the excellent work of employment training can continue?

Mr. Nicholls: Obviously the contracting and recontracting programme has to be done as speedily as possible. However, my hon. Friend is right to make the point that this is an outstandingly successful programme. It is far more successful than any other Government training programme has been and it has given real hope to the unemployed—a great deal more hope than the sour words and diatribes that we hear from the Opposition.

Restart (Redundant Mineworkers)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now bring forward proposals to amend the restart scheme in respect of redundant mineworkers; and if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions on this matter.

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a draft statutory instrument before the House to modify the terms of the redundant mineworkers payment scheme.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is No. 43 on the remaining Orders of the Day. With all the Cabinet reshuffles that are being suggested, I want to make sure that the Department of the Employment Minister gives a commitment that the order


will be brought before the House during the next 14 sitting days, to stop the harassment that is going on at Department of Employment and Department of Social Security offices. Will he also guarantee that when the amended regulations are brought forward they will include retrospective payment of up to £1,000, for miners who have lost that kind of money during this year-long battle?

Mr. Cope: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the order, he will find that it contains a provision for retrospective payment. I think he will find that it is in article 3(d). The order is subject to affirmative resolution, so it will certainly come before the House. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity at that stage. There has been no harassment of which I am aware, but if any hon. Member wishes to raise individual cases with me he can do so.

Mr. Dickens: Despite the carping by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), does my right hon. Friend agree that VAT returns prove conclusively that in every week of the year something like 900 new businesses are started in the United Kingdom? Does that not show— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring, presumably, to redundant miners' new businesses?

Mr. Dickens: Of course. Many of the beneficiaries of these new businesses are miners. Does that not show that the spirit of enterprise is now growing throughout the United Kingdom, and will it not be reflected in the results at the next general election?

Mr. Cope: I am sure that it will be. I am also well aware that many redundant mineworkers have taken advantage of the Government's various schemes in order to start small businesses.

Mr. Eadie: We certainly welcome the last point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the order that is to come before the House of Commons—that he intends to implement the promise that he made to the miners' parliamentary group that there would be retrospective legislation. Are we also to take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that if we know of any cases of harassment of miners—I have evidence that some harassment is taking place in the midlands and the north-east—we shall be able to present those cases to him and he will look into them?

Mr. Cope: Yes, that is what I have said this afternoon, and it is also what I have said in the past about such cases. So far, they have not been raised with me, but if there are any cases I shall look into them. The hon. Gentleman knows, from when he came to see me with his group, that we take this matter seriously.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of fall in unemployment in the United Kingdom and in other comparable European countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: Over the past two years the rate of unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrialised country. The rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom is now 2½

percentage points below the European Community average and below that of France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland and Greece.

Mr. Hayward: I welcome the figures that my right hon. Friend has given, which clearly demonstrate that future prospects for the unemployed in Britain are better than in most of the rest of Europe. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the enormous order that has been announced today by Rolls-Royce from TWA? It shows that British companies can compete successfully on the world market and guarantee long-term prospects for jobs in high-technology industries.

Mr. Fowler: I have just seen the news of that order. I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate Rolls-Royce. It is yet further evidence of the success and capability of the British aerospace industry, and is extremely good news for jobs.

Mr. Fearn: The Secretary of State has just mentioned figures showing the fall in unemployment. Can he say what part tourism is playing in that fall?

Mr. Fowler: Tourism is one of the major employment growth sectors in the economy. About 1½ million people are employed in the tourist and leisure industry, which is clearly one of the most important industries in Britain.

Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every week unemployment levels continue to drop at an ever-increasing rate in the west midlands? We noticed that during the European elections unemployment was not mentioned once by the opposition parties. They can no longer capitalise on it because of our success with it.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The rate of unemployment has fallen faster in the west midlands than in any other part of the country. There are more people now in work in Britain than ever before in our history. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Trades Union Congress

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss employment issues.

Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress on 15 June.

Mr. Strang: After the rout of the Conservative party in the Euro-elections, is it not clear that the TUC and the vast majority of British people want the Government to abandon their opposition to the European social charter? Will the Prime Minister be the only one of the 12 in Madrid to stand out against a measure aimed at improving standards for employees and pensioners throughout the Community?

Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend will continue to do what she has always done on behalf of Britain—to fight our corner within the European Community. If the hon. Gentleman takes comfort from the result of the European elections, we look forward to seeing whether the smile is on the other side of his face after the next general election.

Ports

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the future of scheme ports once the dock labour scheme is abolished; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: The decision to abolish the dock labour scheme has been widely welcomed.
The Confederation of British Industries, chambers of commerce, and associations representing warehousing and freight transport have all welcomed the ending of the scheme's restrictions and believe that this will result not only in a more competitive ports industry but in more business investment and jobs in scheme port areas.

Mrs. Gorman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that despite the £770 million subsidy, the scheme ports already charge 40 per cent. more than the non-scheme ports—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—and that in order to become competitive with the non-scheme ports and with Rotterdam there has to be agreement between the local employers and the dockers on the way forward—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] People in my constituency who work at the Tilbury docks will be very glad when the Government's new measures are in force.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. The business and trade of non-scheme ports has continued to increase over the past 10 or 20 years, and so has employment. I believe that the end of the dock labour scheme will mean that the scheme ports will be able to share in the benefits of the industry.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the Government are very much in the pay of the port employers, what sort of contribution does the Secretary of State expect the employers to make to Tory party funds next year?

Mr. Fowler: From the ending of the dock labour scheme, we expect a contribution to scheme port areas, which will mean more jobs, and that will mean better prospects for all in those areas and all ports around the country.

Enterprise Allowance

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on developments in the enterprise allowance scheme.

Mr. Cope: Over 440,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own businesses under the enterprise allowance scheme since it began in 1982. We have provided for 90,000 places this year and about 85,000 people are currently in receipt of the allowance.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those figures are extremely welcome, particularly as 9,000 people in Chelmsford have joined the scheme? As 57 per cent. of the businesses involved have lasted for more than three years, does he agree that it is an excellent method of job creation? Will he calculate how much it costs the taxpayer to provide that number of new jobs?

Mr. Cope: The net cost per person off the unemployed register is about £1,846, but we are not talking only about people who actually create the businesses; there are also

the people whom they employ. For every 100 people who complete the enterprise allowance scheme there are 139 people working two years later.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way of improving the environment is through increased prosperity? Will she therefore press on with her highly successful policies of the past decade to ensure that this prosperity allows us to continue to meet the aspirations of all our people?

The Prime Minister: It is because the Government have created the conditions for a record standard of living that we have been able to spend so much on improving the environment, so much on improving the quality of water—about £1·2 billion this year—and a great deal on improving river cleanliness so that we have the first-equal record of anyone in Europe, far better than any previous Government. Of course, we are spending nearly £2 billion to ensure compliance with the acid rain directive. Altogether, by ensuring prosperity, we have been able to contribute the maximum amount to the environment.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Hattersley: Last week—last Monday to be exact—the Secretary of State for Social Security explicity rejected the idea that the state pension should provide a "comfortable standard of living". Is that Government policy?

The Prime Minister: The basic state pension has always been a basic state pension—never anticipated to create for all the needs of life. That is why we have—[Interruption.]—at the level at which we would and do provide. That is why, even when I was Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Pensions, we started a second pension, the basic pension followed by a second compulsory pension, either a graduated pension financed by the state or an occupational pension scheme. That is why we also have housing benefit. That is why we also have income support and family credit to make up the pension and to make up incomes to a reasonable standard of living beyond that which the basic pension could possibly reach.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister make it absolutely explicit—I use the words again—that when the Secretary of State for Social Security says that pensioners living on the basic pension should not expect a "comfortable standard of living", that is Government policy? Yes or no?

The Prime Minister: If pensioners have no further income than the basic pension, they will be entitled, as are 2 million, to income support—[Interruption.] The Income


support for older pensioners will go up this October-November. That, too, was the policy accepted by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, if he only knew it.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister never learn? Does she not realise that it is the bland statement of such callous policies that encompassed her humiliation last Thursday?

The Prime Minister: It is the policy which Labour Governments have had to follow as well, in spite of all their rhetoric. I can remember, as the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection,—[Interruption]—for five years, that in his time—[Interruption.]—inflation averaged 12 per cent. a year over five years. I can also remember of that Government, in which he was a Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must have an opportunity to reply.

The Prime Minister: I can also remember, when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for High Prices —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that inflation in 1976 was 21½per cent., and the then Labour Government could not even make up the pension to that.

Sir John Hunt: Will my right hon. Friend give thought today to the Underground strike, which is set to paralyse London tomorrow? In the interests of the long-suffering travelling public in London, is it not time that irresponsible wildcat action of this kind was outlawed by legislation, and when will that be done?

The Prime Minister: I wholly and utterly condemn this strike. It is contrary to the public—is against fellow members of the public who rely, and who are entitled to rely, on transport to get to work. It is a typically selfish policy to put themselves first, before those who have to use —[Interruption.]—to put themselves first, deliberately causing massive inconvenience to those who have to work. Of course, we do not expect Labour Members ever to think of public service.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister agree that, while the question last Tuesday was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would need the removal men, the question now is when the right hon. Lady will need the removal men? Does she have the same unequivocal support from the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary that she gave them last week?

The Prime Minister: We are very much together as a Government—[Interruption.]—as the hon. Gentleman knows, in spite of tremendous efforts to say to the contrary, and we are very happy with our houses at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street and in Carlton gardens.

Sir Richard Body: When my right hon. Friend is considering whether, at the next meeting of the European Council, the subject of the European social charter is to be raised, will she bear in mind that long ago, the European social charter was established by the Council of Europe,

that this country was one of the first to sign and ratify it and that there are members of the European Community, not least Spain, that have yet to sign and ratify it?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the point very effectively indeed, and I shall raise it at Madrid. I agree that we signed the charter of the Council of Europe, which is a declaration and is not legally binding. In regard to the proposed social charter for Europe, it is quite absurd to try to impose on very different countries with different social services the same level of social services. It would either mean enormous burdens of extra costs on employers, and therefore more unemployment, or it would mean colossal extra subsidies from this country and Germany to those poorer countries in Europe which could not afford it without our aid. With £2 billion net paid to the European Community, we are paying enough.

Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McFall: Now that in European terms both Scotland and Wales are Tory-free zones, and mindful of the voters' verdict in the Vale of Glamorgan, Vauxhall, and Glasgow, Central, does the Prime Minister accept that her nostrums for the country are now as potent and as palatable as a tub of hazelnut yoghurt?

The Prime Minister: I am naturally concerned that we have no representation in Scotland, but had Scotland had a Labour Government in the United Kingdom, it would not enjoy a fraction of the prosperity that it now enjoys.

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Yeo: Knowing my right hon. Friend's great concern with environmental issues, does she share my sense of shock that every single member of the European Community has been successfully prosecuted for failing to comply with European Commission directives—that is, every single member with one exception, and will she confirm that the one country with an unblemished record of commitment to both the European ideal and the green ideal is the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the United Kingdom is indeed the only one of the main EC countries not to be so prosecuted, because our record on the environment is so good. That is one reason. The second reason is that, as is well known, this Government always play by the rules.

Mr. Ashdown: When, on Friday, the Prime Minister meets Dame Lydia Dunn, the most respected and most senior of Hong Kong's politicians, will she pay special attention to the comments that Dame Lydia made yesterday when she said that failure to face up to the nationality problem in Hong Kong could undermine the administration of the colony in the years up to 1997? If the Prime Minister will not herself—[Interruption.] If the Prime Minister believes that Britain cannot meet that responsibility itself, will she at least take the lead in ensuring an international solution to these issues?

The Prime Minister: The last time that the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members asked that, I pointed out that we are endeavouring to find increased flexibility, first in the sections of the British Nationality Act 1981 and, secondly, under the broader immigration rules. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has also pointed out that the British overseas passport does not confer right of abode on people and that right of abode would not enable them to move freely and easily around Europe. That requires citizenship. However, those people can come here for a very brief period with the other passport. If it came to a vital refugee problem, of course, we would wish to garner the help of the whole world to deal with it.

Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stanbrook: While reflecting on the good as well as the bad things arising out of the Euro-elections, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the outgoing President of the European Parliament, Lord Plumb, did a very good job indeed and deserves all our thanks, regardless of party, for the competence, dignity and integrity which he demonstrated over two and a half years as the first British holder of that post?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I gladly join my hon. Friend. The noble Lord has been an excellent President of the European Parliament and has given valiant service to it, on which I most earnestly congratulate him. I wish him good luck in the future in his seat in the European Parliament.

Mr. Sedgemore: Has the Prime Minister read the unanimous report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and the Civil Service on Delors? If she has read it, has she understood it? If perchance she understood it, does she agree with it?

The Prime Minister: The whole report I have not read. I have read the Chancellor's evidence. It is absolutely first-class and points out that he would not think of joining the exchange rate mechanism at present; he believes I hat the first priority is to get inflation down. I understand that some of the Labour members of the Committee went flatly against the Labour manifesto and voted in favour of joining the exchange rate mechanism.

NEW MEMBERS

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath or made the affirmation required by law:

Catharine Letitia Hoey, for Vauxhall.

Michael Goodall Watson Esq., for Glasgow, Central.

Public Places(Hygiene)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the fouling of public places by dogs.
After the European elections, I can safely say that dogs are the No. 2 subject of the month. The public are rightly concerned about the increasing number of attacks on people by savage dogs, and the Government have responded to that concern. Last week, the Home Secretary promised to strengthen the power of the courts to deal with dangerous animals and with stray dogs and to apply heavier fines to irresponsible dog owners. The Secretary of State for the Environment promised to increase pressure on local authorities to clear up dogs' mess and to charge owners who allow their dogs to stray. Therefore, to some extent, the Government have pre-empted some of the matters that I wanted to deal with in my Bill. I am most especially concerned, however, with the hygiene aspect of the problem.
I decided to introduce this Bill when a mother came to my surgery a few Saturdays ago and pointed out that her small daughter, who had been playing on a grass verge, had slipped into some dog's mess—verges are often used as public latrines by animals—and had been very seriously ill in hospital. It was at that point that I began to discover the number of diseases that are transmitted through dog's mess. It is not just an aesthetic, but a serious hygiene, problem, and, quite rightly, the Government take the problem of public hygiene very seriously.
In addition to the well-known worms, toxocara, which can affect people's spleens and livers and, of course, cause blindness, dogs' faeces also contain salmonella and campylobacter. Those are the diseases with which the child I have mentioned had been afflicted. They can cause serious damage to the intestines of small children and are quite common in adults. There are a number of complaints from which people suffer without realising that the problem stems from dog faeces. Whenever we breathe and smell those faeces, we are taking into our bodies some of the organisms that are present.
A solution to the problem would be privately owned streets. The people who owned their streets would then ensure that they were kept free from dog fouling. As it is, the public own the streets through the local authorities. The Secretary of State has rightly empowered local authorities to take more steps to encourage local councils to introduce pooper-scoop schemes and heavier fines. In Westminster, the fines are up to £100, but that has not entirely persuaded people to do something about this unpleasant problem.
When, in the old days, people had the problem of disposing of soil, they simply threw it out of the window, with the warning of, "Guar-e-loo". Then, when I was a child, the nasty habit of spitting required "do not spit" notices on all the buses. Why do we still tolerate the problem of dogs using the streets as if they were public lavatories?
As I have said, I am concerned about the hygiene problem, as well as how to control dogs on the streets. I draw the House's attention to the situation in several American cities, including the city of Charleston in North Carolina, where there is a dog lead requirement. No dogs are allowed on public streets unless they are on a lead, and

that copes with the problem of identifying the person who owns the dog. That is one of the main concerns expressed when we talk about the prospect of legislation in this place. I recommend to the Secretary of State that at some time in the future he thinks about that problem. I am waiting to see, however, how the measures that the Government have recently introduced will affect it.
When there are food poisoning incidents, the Government step in immediately to reassure the public that they are doing all they can to control the problem. They inspect, and they require people preparing food for the public to adopt very high standards. Yet still we allow people with dogs to walk the streets and leave behind them potential disease-causing piles on the pavements.
Next time that we have registration for the community charge we should examine the possibility of people putting their dogs on the community charge form. We could then charge the dog owners for cleaning up after their animals. Meanwhile, my main concern is for health. I should like to propose in my Bill that dog owners be required to obtain a certificate—an MOT of health—from a vet before they are allowed to take their dogs on to the streets.
People will say that that cannot be enforced, but one might as well say that one cannot enforce any sort of public hygiene. Of course it can be enforced, and, last week, the Government stated that they would permit the authorities to introduce more wardens to catch irresponsible people.
We cannot continue to tiptoe around the problem or sweep it under the carpet. It is important that our streets are kept clean and beautiful in the same way as some cities in America. In addition to the current regulations operated in many of our cities and in the Isle of Wight, dog owners in this country should be required to obtain from a vet a certificate that the dog has at least been tested to see that it does not contain worms and other diseases, that it is vaccinated against rabies in addition to the ordinary diseases, and that it cannot cause the problems that currently exist.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Vivian Bendall, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Jerry Hayes.

PUBLIC PLACES (HYGIENE)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to control the fouling of public places by dogs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Allocation of time to Bills),
That the Report [19th June] of the Business Committee be now considered. —[Mr. Sackville.]

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

The following is the report of the Business Committee:
That the Resolution [24th May] of the Business Committee shall be varied as follows:

(1) The order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken shall be Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 to 3, Part I of Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 4 to 7, Part II of Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 8 to 10, Schedule No. 2, Clauses


Nos. 11 to 14, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 15 to 18, Schedule No. 4, Clause No. 19, Schedule No. 5, Clauses Nos. 20 to 24, Schedule No. 6, Clauses Nos. 25 to 28, Schedule No. 7, Clauses Nos. 29 to 32, Schedule No. 8, Clause No. 33, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 34 to 74, Schedules Nos. 10 and 11 and Clause No. 75; Government new Clauses; remaining new Clauses.
(2) The following table shall be substituted for the Table set out at the end of that Resolution:

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Amendments up to the end of Schedule No. 3
5.30 p.m.


Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 75
6.30 p.m.


Government new Clauses
7.30 p.m.


New Clauses Nos. 1 to 10
10.00 p.m.


Remaining proceedings on consideration
11.00 p.m.


Third Reading
Midnight

Orders of the Day — Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAINTAIN SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 14, at end insert `but the Secretary of State shall not, in performing the duty, or exercising the power, distinguish, as regards the benefits or services provided or as regards the terms on which they are provided, between pupils at any self-governing school and pupils at education authority schools in the same area.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendments: No. 72, No. 83, No. 84, No. 91, No. 92; and Government new clause 25—Recurrent grant in respect of provision for special educational needs.

Mr. Canavan: As the Bill stands, it is a serious threat to one of the basic principles of comprehensive education,—equality of educational opportunity for all children and young people, irrespective of their ability or aptitude. One of the finest achievements of the 1964–70 Labour Government was the introduction of comprehensive education, and it is worth recalling that it was introduced in Scotland without legislation. The then Secretary of Slate for Scotland, Willie Ross, simply sent a circular round to all local education authorities in Scotland, and even the few authorities which were Tory-controlled complied with the Secretary of State's request, because it was reasonable and because there was such widespread consensus in Scotland at that time about the fairness of comprehensive education, and particularly the basic principle of equality of educational opportunity. Many people saw through the unfairness and the evils of the two-tier system, under which children were selected or rejected at the ages of 11 or 12 on the result of just one test.
It is greatly to be regretted that the Government have now broken the consensus in favour of comprehensive education, a system for which there is still widespread support in Scotland. Scotland moved towards comprehensive education without the need for legislation, yet the Government are forcing this Bill through the House against the wishes of elected Scottish Members, the majority of those working in education and the majority of parents, all of whom want nothing to do with such an infringement of the basic principle of equality of educational opportunity.
There is an understandable fear of a return to a two-tier system, and without my amendment there will be an increased chance of that happening. The Secretary of State may show bias towards self-governing schools and give them special treatment or unfair advantage over local authority schools. The Government are intent upon eroding the local authority education sector. For political, not educational, reasons, the Secretary of State may try to


encourage that erosion by giving additional funds to schools that opt for self-governing status, in the hope that that will have a snowball effect, with more parents voting for self-governing status because they want that additional funding for their children.
The Bill will split the local authority education system into two different sorts of school. The self-governing schools will be funded by direct grant from the Secretary of State, with the remainder being funded, as at present, by local authorities. The local authority is dependent upon the Secretary of State, through revenue support grant, for most of the money that it spends on education. It is also dependent upon him for borrowing consent for capital for projects such as the building of new schools or extensions to existing schools. The Secretary of State will have his hands on the purse strings not only of what he hopes will be self-governing schools but, indirectly, of local authority schools. There will be an opportunity for a certain amount of financial manipulation to give unfair advantage to self-governing schools.
The amendment would place upon the Secretary of State a statutory responsibility to be as even-handed as possible between local authority schools and self-governing schools. The Minister may have already noticed that there is a similarity in the wording of my amendment to clause 24, which states:
the authority shall not, in performing the duty, or exercising the power, distinguish, as regards the benefits or services provided or as regards the terms on which they are provided, between those two categories of pupil.
The two categories of pupils referred to are those at self-governing schools and those at education authority schools.
To refresh the memories of those who were members of the Committee, and the memories of Members present now for Report, clause 24 refers to certain services and benefits for pupils which will continue to be the statutory responsibility of the education authority even for self-governing schools after opting out has taken place. Schedule 6 specifies the obligations which the education authority shall continue to have even after self-governing status has been acquired. Those responsibilities include the responsibility for health and cleanliness of pupils.
Health and cleanliness are important. It is often said that cleanliness is next to godliness. However, educational opportunity is also important. With regard to the important aspect of educational opportunity, which is the prime function of a school, the Secretary of State should have a continuing responsibility to be even-handed in his treatment of education authority schools and any schools which may opt for self-governing status.
If the drafters of the legislation, and presumably the Secretary of State, thought it necessary to write into the Bill a continuing statutory responsibility on education authorities in connection with self-governing schools, I maintain that there is an equally compelling case to place a statutory responsibility on the Secretary of State to be even-handed in his treatment of the two different categories of schools and the two different categories of pupils.
The Secretary of State has some responsibility, directly or indirectly, for the education of all children in Scotland. It is sometimes said that we are all Jock Tamson's bairns. However, in this matter of education, I suppose we are all

the Secretary of State's bairns. Just like any good parent who tries to be even-handed with his or her children, if the Secretary of State is to be a responsible and good Secretary of State for education in Scotland, he should have regard to the need for equality of educational opportunity between children attending self-governing schools and those attending education authority schools in the same area.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State so far, by many of his actions, has failed to live up to his responsibility to be even-handed with pupils, whatever school they attend or whatever category they fall into. That is obvious from the massive cuts in educational provision and the resources provided to education authority schools. Those cuts have been imposed by the Government while at the same time, they can find millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to operate the assisted places scheme in non-education authority schools, which in effect means that millions of pounds of public money are being given out to bolster that privileged sector of education which caters for less than 4 per cent. of Scottish children.
In view of the Secretary of State's track record in being very unfair and using public money to bolster privilege while at the same time denying adequate resources to 96 per cent. of children who attend education authority schools in Scotland, there is a strong need for a statutory responsibility like that proposed in my amendment. It would place the onus on the Secretary of State to give equality of treatment to all children in Scotland, instead of giving an unfair advantage to a privileged minority.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) made three or four general points in support of the amendment before coming to the point of principle. I accept at the outset that he has a genuine point of principle, but the amendment is unnecessary.
The hon. Gentleman's first point was that the legislation is being passed against the wishes of the majority of parents. It is worth reiterating that nothing will happen at self-governing schools unless the parents wish it to happen. Under the revised provisions before the House, there will, if necessary, be two ballots of parents and, unless they express the wish for their school to have self-governing status, there will be no change. Therefore, this is purely permissive legislation. That is the crucial point against those who have sought to tell the Scottish people that anybody will be forced to do anything under the self-governing clauses.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was that the legislation seeks to undermine the comprehensive system. I have no doubt that we shall return to that point during the debate, but it is not central to the hon. Gentleman's case at this stage. However, it is interesting to note what has been revealed about Opposition Members' view of the objectives of Scotland's comprehensive education system. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) made a remarkable admission in an article in the Glasgow Herald this morning. In a number of respects, it was a remarkably honest article, and I commend him on that. He said:
Before 1979, Education was used by successive governments in an attempt to engineer an even more egalitarian society.
All is revealed. That is what the Labour Government's education policies in Scotland were all about—not according to propaganda from the Adam Smith Institute


or the Tory party central office, but according to the Labour party's Front-Bench education spokesman. They were all about social engineering.

Mr. Dick Douglas: They did not make a good job of it in my case.

Mr. Stewart: I shall not make any personal comment on the hon. Gentleman's education. As he knows, I am a product of the Scottish comprehensive education system, and proud to be so. However, I went through that system rather earlier than the hon. Gentleman.
Dundee high school has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). He will be glad to know, as I am sure the House will be, that this year Dundee high school celebrates its 750th year. Those who sometimes make the most wild assertions about Scottish educational traditions should bear in mind the fact that the tradition of that school has continued in Dundee for three quarters of a millenium.
The third point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West related to the assisted places scheme. However, that scheme is about choice, just as the provisions to which the amendment refers are about choice. [Interruption.] Let me give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) a quotation, again from the revealing article written by the hon. Member for Fife, Central:
the hi-jacking and exploitation by the right of parental choice is one of their most significant victories.
I agree. It is a significant and continuing victory.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the assisted places scheme is a creaming-off process that attacks comprehensive education, by taking certain children out of it to receive special treatment. The same was done a long time ago. The scheme favours a particular grouping, and the price of it goes up year by year at the expense of comprehensive education.

Mr. Stewart: Not at all. The scheme is designed to give those having incomes below a certain level the opportunity to send their children to particular schools. The scheme extends choice and gives parents an opportunity to choose a particular sector of education. It makes no attack on the comprehensive system.

4 pm

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House over the way in which the assisted places scheme operates. He seems to suggest that all parents having an income below the level to which he referred have a right to an assisted place for their child, but he knows perfectly well that that is not true. The headmaster of the school operating the scheme has the final say. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is right to say that the headmaster—correctly, from his point of view—chooses the cream of the pupils. There are hundreds and hundreds of cases of children of parents who meet the income criteria being refused admission.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) for confirming that there is a large demand for assisted places. That line was not generally taken by Labour Members in Committee, but the hon. Member for Falkirk, East has more experience and understanding of Scottish education trends than do

members of the Labour Front Bench. While the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that not every pupil who wants such an education has an opportunity to receive it, that is not an argument for not extending that opportunity whenever possible.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) argues that there should be an equality of treatment as between the Secretary of State's financing of self-governing schools and that which the Secretary of State partly, if not wholly, determines for schools in the local authority sector. The Government's position on that aspect has been stated with great clarity. At the 18th sitting of the First Scottish Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister stated:
It may help the Committee if I restate the cardinal principle that an individual self-governing school should be neither better nor worse off than it could reasonably have expected if it had remained under local authority management. That phrase has been used many times in Committee and was contained in the descriptive paper that we issued in December, and discussed in response to points made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
I recall that he did so with the brevity to which members of the Committee became accustomed during its proceedings: My hon. Friend continued:
Therefore, it is right that they should be treated no better and no worse than would be expected for equivalent schools managed by the education authority for the same area."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 20 April 1989; c. 854.]
That seems crystal clear to me. I would expect my hon. Friend the Minister to express some sympathy with the general point of principle made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West—although not with many of his arguments—but I feel that the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to the three quarters of a millenium for which Dundee high school has served the people of Dundee. I must point out to him that it has not served them all; it has served only those who could afford the fees. The Opposition are entirely opposed to any link between access to education and ability to pay, which is why we do not rejoice in 750 years of Dundee people being refused education.

Mr. Alan Stewart: Logically, then, the hon. Gentleman must wish for the abolition of the independent sector.

Mr. McAllion: I look forward to the day when access to education is given freely and equally across the country, irrespective of ability to pay. I certainly support the abolition of public funding for the independent sector. If people want to do their own thing with their own money that is their affair, but they cannot look to public funds from the taxpayer for the indoctrination of elitism in a whole new generation of children.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once, but this is the last time.

Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his usual courteous manner. Does he agree that pupils from his constituency and mine attend Dundee high school under the assisted placed scheme because of the level of their parents' income and also because they were acceptable, being, in most cases, able and talented? Those


children have been given a unique opportunity. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that children should not be offered such opportunities?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman entirely misrepresents the scheme. Private fee-paying schools suffer from the same problem experienced for many years by public-sector schools—falling rolls. Because falling rolls meant that the private sector could not maintain its own business, the Government dreamed up the assisted places scheme as a way of filling places with the help of public money. That is why the Labour party will phase out the scheme when they come to office at the next election—as we will; make no mistake about that.
The hon. Member for Eastwood said that he considered the amendment unnecessary. He would think that, because it ties down the Secretary of State for Scotland to treating both sectors fairly. The Conservative party does not want that; it wants to leave the Secretary of State enough room to exercise bias in the allocation of funds.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill was purely permissive. That is not true. Under the clause as it stands, the Secretary of State will clearly favour schools that opt for self-governing status. Parents will quickly get the message: if they want their kids to be educated in a decent school—a decent building with decent equipment and well-paid teachers—they had better opt out of local authority control, because the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to squeeze public-sector funds and force them out. There is nothing permissive about that. My hon. Friend's amendment is right on the ball, and should be supported.
In Committee, the Minister said that self-governing schools would receive exactly the same funding as they might reasonably have expected had they remained under local authority control. Such a proposition is unproblematic only if schools that opt out remain unchanged under the direct rule of the Scottish Office. What will happen when the Government try to apply that principle? What if the roll changes in a school? The funding will then have to change as well. Who will decide how it is to change? The Secretary of State for Scotland.
What if the character of the school changes? That is also permissible under the Bill. A school may go for academic selection or for single-sex status—or, indeed, mixed status—which will obviously have funding implications. Who makes the decision about funding implications? Again, the Secretary of State for Scotland makes it, completely on his own.
What about the capital requirements of a school? It is hard to imagine that the Secretary of State for Scotland will know what the capital funding of any school might have received, had it remained under education authority control. He would need to know the state of the building and the level of priorities in a particular school compared with other schools in the education authority's area, and also where the school would be placed in the programme by the education authority. All that the Secretary of State can do is to put a school at the top of the list and provide it with more capital funding than it might have received from the education authority. I do not know how anyone can say that the Secretary of State will not be allowed to do that.
If the Secretary of State is serious about the principle that there will be no additional funding for self-governing schools that opt out, he must accept the amendment. It writes on to the face of the Bill a restriction that the Secretary of State for Scotland must be fair to both sectors.

Mr. John McFall: On the point about the funding of self-governing schools being the same as that of local authority schools, does not my hon. Friend agree that, for years, Scottish local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled local authorities, have spent more on education than the Government say that they ought to have spent? We have been told by the Government that, although local authorities have spent over the limit during the last 10 years, they will nevertheless be given as much as they have already spent on education because they believed that it was essential to spend that much on education. That holds the key to the debate. The Government will sugar the pill with extra finance and thereby allow self-governing schools to opt out. The Government have given no credible answer on that point.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. that is obvious to everyone in Scotland, particularly since last Thursday's European election results, when the Tories were finally rejected completely in Scotland. To those of us who live in Scotland, it has been obvious for many years that the Government have been squeezing the funds that they have made available to public sector schools. They have squeezed the money that they have made available to education authorities, mostly by controlling what is now called the revenue support grant. They have placed strict limits on education authority spending. The poll tax will now make it virtually impossible for education authorities to raise enough money to spend on schools.
The Government are trying to ensure that the kind of services that are provided by education authorities will be minimal. They have provided them with only minimal funding for those services. At the same time, they have tried to create a new self-governing sector to which the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will have no restrictions placed upon him as the Bill stands, will be able to allocate funds as he likes.
That is the carrot that will be used to tempt parents to take advantage of what was described by the hon. Member for Eastwood as purely permissive legislation, although it is nothing of the kind. It is a carrot to try to save the reputation of the radical, far Right-wing Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). He wants to create a two-tier system and also to destroy the local education authority schools sector in Scotland. This is another step down that road.
God knows what will come after this measure. When the School Boards (Scotland) Bill was considered, it was said that it would give power back to the parents. Power was not given back to the parents. Instead, it paved the way for the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. This Bill will pave the way for yet another monstrous piece of legislation, behind which there will be only one principle—to attack the public provision of education and to destroy local authority schools. That is why the House, in line with the people of Scotland, should vote for the amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendment. I am sure that the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will be read with great interest by his constituents and also by mine, particularly his views on that very fine school, Dundee high school. I did not attend that school, nor did any of my children, but as a Dundonian I believe that it has enhanced the status and position of Dundee, a status and position that sadly, it would not enjoy without the school. It has contributed handsomely in the past to the provision of many leaders in almost every walk of life. However, the hon. Member for Dundee, East, has put it on record that he wishes that school, after 750 years, to be destroyed.
That is not so very surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to the fact that in today's Glasgow Herald, there is a most interesting article by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). I am confident that it will be referred to regularly in future and that his attention will be drawn to it on many occasions. There is no question that he has set out clearly what the views of the Labour party are and have been. He wrote:
Before 1979 Education was used by successive Governments in an attempt to engineer a more egalitarian society.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central is nodding in agreement. He is obviously proud of that. That is good, because I shall find that article very useful in future. I shall also find it useful to quote back to him his comment earlier in the same article that
privatisation represents a much greater threat than Anglicisation.
There is nothing in the Bill about privatisation. Self-governing schools are not privatised schools.
4.15 pm
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), to give him credit, is consistent. He found it just as difficult to live with a Labour Government as he does with a Conservative Government. He said that in Scotland today the Conservative Government are putting through legislation which is opposed by the majority of Scottish Members in the House. Of course, that is nothing new. I remind him that the Labour Government passed a Bill through the House to abolish the grammar schools—a fundamental change in English education—without a majority in England. I do not argue with that, because I believe that the unitary Parliament is the right place to take such decisions, but the hon Gentleman and his colleagues cannot have it both ways. They either support the unitary Parliament and what it does or they do not.
In the euphoria since last Thursday—I congratulate the new Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) who is obviously a credit to the Labour party and I am sure will be a credit to the House—Labour Members have been very happy with the result and the leaders of the Labour party have been making noises about what they will do in government. If the Labour party was in government, in the same situation as previously, when it had no majority in England, quite properly it would wish to put through legislation affecting England, using its majority in other parts of the United Kingdom—usually Scotland and Wales—to make sure that that legislation got through. The hon. Gentleman is not being even-handed, which is unlike him as he is usually pretty consistent in the way in which he deals with these matters.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West spoke about cuts in education funds. He and I know that the amount of money contributed by the taxpayer, and previously by the ratepayer, per child in school in Scotland has increased substantially under the Conservative Government, and that the only real reductions occurred under the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the increase in funding per child has been substantial and has continued under the present Government.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) in a fairly lengthy intervention, made it quite clear that, under the assisted places scheme, hundreds were refused acceptance. If that is the case, we can count on his support to increase the funds available so that the hundreds who have been refused places will be able to enjoy the benefits of the scheme. Although those being refused acceptance do not run into large numbers in my constituency, the hon. Gentleman may well be right that hundreds are being refused. We have only his word for it, but if that is the case we look forward to him joining us in the Lobby at some future date when we persuade the Government to increase the funding to make that very fine scheme work effectively.
All hon. Members will realise that the Government and their supporters have never made any secret of the fact that they believe that, when local education authorities are receptive to the needs of local schools and understand the needs of the local community, the likelihood of a school board and the parents wishing to become self-governing would be remote. It will occur only in circumstances in which the parents and the school boards consider that the local authority has not understood, does not wish to understand and does not respond. It is clear that this is permissive legislation.

Mr. Allan Stewart: To underline my hon. Friend's point, does he agree that the legislation has already been successful? It was only the threat of self-governing status that caused Strathclyde regional council to change its attitude to the extension to Neilson primary school.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood for that helpful intervention. I agree with him. What is more important is that, as this legislation is going through the House, we have on the statute book an Act to set up the school boards, and that has produced a dramatic change in attitudes in Strathclyde. Strathclyde is now clearly embracing the setting up of school boards, and it is doing so in a much more positive and aggressive way than the present statute. That can only be encouraging.
It is obvious that the amendment does not reflect Conservative Members' view that this is enabling legislation. That is all it is—it enables; it is permissive; it does nothing more than that. It enables the school boards and the parents, if they feel that the local education authority is not responding to their wishes, to vote for their school to be self-governing, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West must remember that his amendment has not taken account of the lengthy debates in Committee. He does not accept that Conservative Members believe that there will be no demand for self-governing schools. If Scottish education is everything that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues claim, there will be no demand for them.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray


(Mrs. Ewing), who had to return to Scotland this morning because of a serious illness in her family. It is particularly unfortunate because the amendments dealing with special needs and special schools are within my hon. Friend's specialist interest. I will do my best to put her points of view.
I support the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). Amendment No. 33 goes to the heart of the fallacy that the Conservative Government are trying to promote in this legislation—the idea that parents will have a free choice between opting out or staying within the state system. However, we all know that there are two situations in which opting out will become a reality, and they are a school closure or a school having reason to believe that it will be more favourably treated in capital allocation by opting out of the state system.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) always makes some remarkable contributions in Scottish debates. He should recognise that this legislation is now being pushed through Parliament by a party that is now the third party in Scotland. It is about 5 per cent. behind the Scottish Nationalist party. The hon. Gentleman should realise also that support for the Scottish Conservative party, as measured by last Thursday's European election, is now less than that for the Green Party in west Surrey. That seems a fragile mandate on which to push forward a piece of legislation that is overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of the Scottish people.
I now refer to what happens to parents when faced with the problems of school closure or the thought that their school might be better funded under the opting-out legislation.
Today's Glasgow Herald tells us that the ruling Labour group in Strathclyde
seems set to proceed with the closure of two secondary schools and eight primaries, despite bitter opposition from parents' groups.
It would be understandable even if parents who opposed the legislation were tempted by the opting-out provisions. I recall a speech by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) in the Scottish Grand Committee last year when we were discussing the NHS and the opting out of hospitals. He said, as a fierce opponent of the opting-out provisions, that he, as a constituency Member, might be pushed, as an alternative to closure, into considering opting out on the part of a hospital in his area.
I think I see the hon. Member for Tayside, North indicating assent to that proposition. Opting out will not solve the underlying resource and capacity problems in the health or education services. The Tories will have to say exactly which schools they would like to see closed as an alternative to those which stay open as a result of being tempted to opt out. What is proposed will solve nothing. It will simply move the problem, in the education service or in the NHS, to another area. It will also create problems in terms of dividing and fragmenting the education system.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when this legislation becomes law, the Secretary of State, in the final analysis, will have to agree to a school becoming self-governing. Surely that is the Government taking some responsibility?

Mr. Salmond: There is no question but that this is a piece of centralising legislation. It gives enormous power to the Secretary of State over a range of matters. But it does not give parents much power. It would be remarkable if the Minister, desperate to secure some evidence, whatever it might be, of support for opting out, did not grasp at any straw and allowed any school to opt out so that he could claim it as a success for his policy.
It is also difficult to believe that there will not be nods and winks in the direction of certain schools to the effect that if they opt out, they will be exceptionally well treated by way of facilities, new buildings and the like. Parents will face being squeezed between the Strathclyde stick of school closure and the Tory carrot of extra resources. That is not a free choice, and this is not enabling legislation.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference between school rationalisation because rationalisation is necessary—which is bound to be unpopular with individual groups of parents—and school rationalisation which is used for other purposes? Consider, for example, the rationalisation carried out in Strathclyde because a majority of the Labour group, against the wishes of the chairman of the Labour group, decided that they did not want single-sex schools in the area. That was an ideological decision. It was different from a straightforward and sensible rationalisation, even though it might be opposed by individual groups of parents.

Mr. Salmond: I have no intention of defending every decision of Strathclyde regional council. Indeed, I do not think that Labour Members would wish to defend every decision of that council on school closures. There is a consensus that the closure programme in many cases was carried out clumsily, to put it no stronger. But at the heart of the argument is the fear that the provision for opting out will tempt people faced with the closure of their school into taking that step, when it will not solve the problem. It will not solve the problem of capacity or offer the additional resources that would be required if more schools in aggregate were to remain open.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) should say which schools in Strathclyde he would close as an alternative to those he would keep open. Unless additional resources are provided for the education service, the take-up of the opting-out provision will be secured by the heavy stick of school closures or the carrot of additional resources.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West goes to the heart of the fallacy that the Tory party is putting forward in this legislation. If Conservative Members wish to claim that there is no intention to treat differently those schools that may be tempted by opting out, they should find no difficulty in accepting the amendment.

Mr. McFall: On the issue of single-sex schools, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are flying a kite in relation to Strathclyde? The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in pushing his point without any foundation. There are five single-sex schools in Strathclyde—two are in my constituency and are amalgamating—and I have never heard his argument advanced as a matter of policy. Indeed, I can inform him that it is not a matter of policy because I have contacted the director of education and have raised that point with him. He has said that the abolition of single-sex schools is not a part of Strathclyde's


policy. The Government are trying to drive wedges in those areas where there is already pressure because of falling resources and where they have therefore been able to spread discord. That is the real reason.

Mr. Salmond: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I hope that he will accept that the reasons that I am giving as to why people might opt out highlight the fallacy of believing that this legislation can be successfully opposed by a general debate about the rights and wrongs of opting out. If we were to have a general debate about those rights and wrongs, Scotland would give an overwhelming majority against opting out. The difficulty with this legislation is that particular pressures may be unfairly imposed on particular groups of parents which may lead them down the road of opting out.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose—

Mr. Salmond: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have already done so once.
That is why the SNP made that point so strongly in Committee and said that opting out could not be opposed simply by means of a general debate.
I now turn to the issue of special needs, special schools, special resources and the Government amendments. There were many disreputable and unsatisfactory aspects to the Bill's Committee stage, but the political interchange that led to special schools being included in this legislation was one of the most disreputable of all. I am happy to see the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in his place as I say that. As I understand it, special schools were not included in the original legislation. The Labour party made the mistake of tabling an amendment that would have had the effect of including them. However, the English Conservative Members on the Committee then hijacked the amendment and tabled it as their own. That was part of a political game that the Tory members of the Committee were playing.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. I saw an excellent amendment on the Amendment Paper and felt that it strengthened the Bill. When I serve on a Standing Committee, I read the Bill and the amendments and if I think that they are excellent amendments, I want to show my support for them. Therefore, I approached the Clerk to try to add my signature to that marvellous, extra and wonderful amendment but found that it had disappeared, so I tabled it myself.

Mr. Salmond: I am not impressed by the innocence with which the hon. Gentleman puts his case. Although I was not present in the Committee to hear him, I have now read the Hansard report of his speeches and it would be difficult not to interpret or detect from his speeches the relish with which he seized on a mistake made by the Labour party. We all play a political game—

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
We all play political games they—are the stuff of politics—but we should not play political games with children who need special attention in education.

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Salmond: If the Government had carefully considered the question whether special schools sould be included in the opt-out legislation, we can assume that such provisions would have been in the original Bill. This is a serious issue that demands careful consideration. Such provisions should not emerge in the legislation simply as part of a political interchange between Conservative and Labour Members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): If the hon. Gentleman is telling the House that he has read the Hansard of the Committee proceedings, I am surprised that he did not read the strong representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) read to the Committee from a lady from Bearsden who has a child with special needs. If the hon. Gentleman has also studied the Bill, he will be aware that, contrary to what he has just told the House, there was a provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to include special schools by order. The original Opposition amendment, which was then tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, simply made it automatic that special schools should have that right.

Mr. Salmond: Exactly; I thought that that was the point that I had just made.
As to the assurances that the Minister gave in Committee, he changed course as a result of a political interchange that took place in Committee. I do not believe that he can convince us that a great deal of thought had been given to that change of course.

Mr. Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Salmond: Perhaps the Minister would listen for a second, and then I shall ask him to answer a specific point about remarks that he made in Committee.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He spent the time in Committee attempting to argue the case for disruption of the House and telling the people of Scotland that the Committee was a waste of time. Is he now criticising the Government because they responded to the arguments that were put in Committee, and amended the Bill accordingly?

Mr. Salmond: The Minister's intervention is totally irrelevant. The disruption was to challenge the right of the Government to parachute English Tory Back Benchers into the Committee. I should have thought that the way that the clause emerged in Committee was ample proof that it was unsatisfactory to have a debate on Scottish education dominated by people who had no interest in the Scottish education system.
I trust that the Minister will not dispute assurances that he gave in Committee about consultation with interested groups on special needs children. The Minister may remember—if he cares to pay some attention to the debate —that he gave assurances to the organisations particularly concerned with special needs children that he would engage in a process of proper consultation about the changes that were to take place. I take it that the Minister remembers that assurance.
I now have a copy of a letter about the consultation that took place. A letter from Mr. Cunliffe of the Scottish Education Department was posted on Friday, 2 June. Presumably it reached the organisations on Monday, 5


June. The organisations were given until Tuesday, 13 June, to submit their opinions to the Government. Given the complexity of special needs education, acknowledged on all sides, does the Minister really believe that a consultation period of a week is enough to consider the full range of issues that were debated in Committee? Should not the Minister have allowed a decent period for the organisations to submit their opinions on the legislation?
If the Minister could not give a proper consultation period, would it not have been proper not to proceed with this aspect of the Bill? If the Government wished to proceed with the opting-out of special schools, could it not have been done later? I would be grateful if the Minister would intervene and confirm that I am correct in saying that only a week was allowed for organisations to submit their opinions on the Government's proposals. I take it that the Minister confirms that that is the case.
Mr. Cunliffe's letter refers to unique problems in trying to assess the resources for recorded children. Then it refers to a dialogue between the education authority on the one hand and an opted-out school on the other as to what degree of resources should be applied to each recorded child. The Minister may call it a dialogue. Having read the letter, I think that complex issues are involved and that these children will be no more than piggies in the middle of a battle between the education authority and the schools that have opted out.
In line with the commitments that the Minister gave in Committee about genuine consultation and considering seriously the range of issues involved, including the resourcing of special schools and the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray raised in Committee, does not the Minister feel that a longer period is required for consultation and reflection? I would be grateful if he would give a constructive response.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: It may be helpful if I say something at this point about the Government's amendments Nos. 72, 83, 84, 91 and 92 and new clause 25 and respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in respect of amendment No. 33. We have made it clear all along that, in setting the amount of grant to be paid to a self-governing school, the aim will be to ensure that it is not better off or any worse off than it might reasonably have expected to be under continuing local authority management, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out.
The most important consequence is that the recurrent grant paid to a school must reflect the level of spending by the education authority on its own schools. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was talking nonsense when he argued that it was a centralising measure. The Secretary of State will not determine the level of funding for a school; that will be determined by the level of funding reflected in the policies of the local authority. The detailed arrangements giving effect to that principle will be a matter for the grant regulations to be made under clause 25. Amendment No. 33 certainly does not achieve any such effect. The Secretary of State is not involved in providing services directly to pupils, whether in a self-governing school or an education authority school. When

considering overall levels of resources, what matters is equality of treatment for schools, and that is central to our entire thinking about self-governing schools.
I must say to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that, if he reads the report of the Second Reading debate and the quote that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State used from his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), he will see that we understood the Labour party's position to be that it was against equality of opportunity in education, but was in favour of equality of outcome. That is the difference which separates the two sides of the House. It was extremely helpful for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to spell it out so clearly.
The remaining Government amendments are largely concerned with ensuring equity of treatment in resourcing provision for recorded special educational needs in self-governing schools.
I was sorry to hear of the absence from the House of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) due to family illness. It was a great blessing to the Standing Committee that it was the hon. Lady who participated in our proceedings and not the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. She approached the matter in an extremely constructive and helpful way, unlike the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman. With the hon. Lady's particular experience and interest in special education, we found her advice invaluable in the lengthy discussions that we had on special needs, notably on the changes made in part III to the 1980 Act arrangements for placements of recorded children, and, more generally, on the effect of part I of the Bill on special educational needs. The form of the Bill reflects that influence. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan did not acknowledge that.
I should acknowledge, too, the many organisations that have given us helpful advice on the proposals in the Bill in relation to special education, for which we were extremely grateful. I express special appreciation to Sense in Scotland, which is concerned with the deaf-blind. It has followed the proceedings in Committee very closely and its main concern was that provision for special educational needs should be both secure and adequately financed. I believe that the amendments that we have tabled today will reassure it on both counts.
Amendment No. 72 reflects the concern on both sides of the Committee that self-governing schools should continue to provide for special educational needs and that there should be a positive duty to encourage and to increase that provision. We have, through clause 28, protected existing levels of provision for special needs. As schools now have a duty to have regard to the need to improve that provision, it is not sensible to require the balloting procedure to apply to improvements that flow from that duty. Amendment No. 92 means that increases in special educational needs provision should not be regarded as a change in the characteristics of a school.

Mr. Douglas: If the boards of management of schools that become self-governing are to have this responsibility—I speak with a little interest—who will make the assessment of whether they are adhering to that responsibility? Will the local education authority or the Secretary of State make that assessment?

Mr. Forsyth: The board of governors will be under a duty to do so. If it is failing in any of its duties, there is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to take action. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a little longer, I think that it will become more evident how we see that process working. Perhaps I could send him a copy of the letter that we sent out, following my undertaking in Committee, when I stressed the problems of the time available. I believe that a copy of the letter would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 are made in respect of a further undertaking that I gave in Committee. They deal with the description of a school that is to be provided, along with published proposals relating to that school's application to become self-governing. The amendments would require the description to state what range, or, in other words, the kind, of provisions that the school has for pupils with special eduational needs. Clause 16(4)(b) recognises that all schools should make some provision for special educational needs and requires the extent of that to be stated as a basic characteristic of the school. The amendments, therefore, considerably strengthen the requirement to specify the provision for special educational needs at any school.
When the Committee amended the Bill to make special schools eligible for self-governing status, I agreed to bring before the House on Report amendments that would make any necessary changes to allow for that.
I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as I said when I intervened, that it is quite extraordinary for him to take the view that we should not listen to the views expressed in Committee and seek to respond to them. A clearly expressed wish in Committee was that special schools should be eligible in the same way as other schools for that purpose. [Interruption.] I am surprised that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is scoffing, because he tabled the amendment in Committee in the first place.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose—

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and then to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

Mr. Michael Brown: I believe that hon. Members should not forget the 12th sitting of the Committee on Tuesday 11 April, when I read out the letter sent to me by Mrs. Lamont from Bearsden. The House should remember that Mrs. Lamond took the trouble to write a letter to one of the Scottish newspapers putting it clearly on the record that she felt that it was a disgrace that the Opposition were rejecting the possibility of children and parents of children at special schools being offered the same opportunities as those offered in the Bill to other people. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) says that he has read the proceedings of the Committee, he clearly needs to read again the Hansard of the 12th sitting of that Committee.

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. I recall that the substance of the complaint, and of the letter that appeared in one of the Scottish newspapers from Mrs. Lamond, made the point that parents felt aggrieved that

education authorities were able to take policy decisions to close special needs schools and to deprive them of a facility, and that those authorities believed that that would increase parental choice. Of course, the Labour party took its time-honoured position that the local authorities—the politicians—know better than the parents what is needed for their children. That is why the Labour party changed its mind on this matter and withdrew the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes had added his name. He then took over the amendment and moved it eloquently during our proceedings.

Mr. Salmond: I hesitate to interrupt a reunion of the board of Michael Forsyth Associates, but will the Minister reply to the question that I have asked several times? Does he feel that a week's consultation matches the commitment he gave in Committee to consult the organisations concerned? Given the complexities of the issue, is a week's consultation adequate for organisations to respond? Will he answer directly?

Mr. Forsyth: I am finding it increasingly difficult to accept that the hon. Gentleman has read the Committee proceedings. I said that there would be difficulties over consultation, given the time scale involved. The amendment was not moved by the Government, and I accepted it on the basis of the views and arguments expressed.

Mr. McFall: On one side.

Mr. Forsyth: I was concerned with the side mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes a few moment ago—the side of the parents of children with special needs who believe that the choice should be available to them in the legislation.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
The Committee was right in its judgment that, if parents of children at a special school wish it to become self-governing, they should be allowed to pursue that objective. I do not agree that special schools are so different from the generality of schools that the parents involved do not wish to participate in ensuring a good education for their children. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talked of the compressed timetable, but we have been impressed by the responses we have received and we have received a considerable amount of support for the amendments to which I am speaking.

Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister not accept that his argument falls down? If he is saying that the fact that the amendment arose from the Committee caused grave problems over consultation, would that not he an argument for rejecting the amendment in Committee until the Government could carry out proper consultation and think again on the legislation?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seems to have parted company from his hon. Friend the Member for Moray. If the basis of his argument is that we should not have made amendments at this stage in respect of special needs because there should have been a longer time for consultation, none of the commitments I gave to his hon.
Friend the Member for Moray would have been possible. I do not think that his hon. Friend would be too pleased with him, but there is nothing new in that.
There are some distinguishing characteristics. Most pupils who go to special schools have records of needs, and they pursue an educational curriculum that is frequently individual and different in content. Therefore, we had to consider how the existence of records of needs might affect the position. Under part 5 of the record, the authorities have a statutory duty to nominate the school to be attended. That nomination must take into account the views of parents and can be subject to the effect of a placing request. It remains the authority's duty to provide for the special educational needs of recorded children and that duty inescapably determines the majority of school placement decisions for such children. That meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas).
It has been necessary—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is saying that not all recorded children go to special schools. That is not what I said. I said that the authority's duty to provide for the special educational needs of recorded children determines the majority of school placement decisions for such children. That may be in mainstream education or in special schools.
It has been necessary to consider how the authority's role in supplying the special educational needs of recorded children may be fitted into the arrangements for self-governing schools. That aspect is not confined to special schools. Certainly, special schools contain more recorded children, but, where appropriate, recorded children are placed in mainstream schools and the effect of education authority nominations through the record must also be taken into account.
We have concluded that what is needed are not different arrangements for self-governing schools but an approach to the calculation of a separate element of recurrent grant for schools, whether special or mainstream, focused on the provision made for recorded children.
The arrangement I propose for the consideration of the House comprises two essential stages. First, there should be a dialogue and exchange of information between each self-governing school in an area and the education authority. The authority will say what provision it needs to make to fulfil its statutory duty in relation to the education of these children. The schools will tell the authority of the provisions they are able and willing to make to help the authority fulfil that duty. The object of the exchange is that each school and authority should agree on the amount of provision that the school will make and which the authority would take advantage of.
The second phase of the process will be for the school and the authority to estimate the cost of that agreed level of commitment towards recorded pupils and notify that amount to the Secretary of State. Normally, recurrent grant would be set at that level. In the event of agreement not being reached—this concerned the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West—on the level of provision or on its cost or both, the Secretary of State will be able to make a determination. If the Secretary of State cannot accept any aspect of an agreement, he may also make a determination. The recurrent grant calculated under these

proposals will be additional to the grant calculated under clause 25 for the generality of functions at a mainstream self-governing school.
For special schools, account must be taken of pupils with special educational needs who may not have a record, either because it is still being prepared or because they have been placed there by children's panels or social work departments. The agreement between the authority and the special school and the recurrent grant will therefore take account of all children and all other costs that arise.

Mr. Douglas: Am I interpreting the Minister correctly? Is he saying that it would be in the interest of a special needs school and the education authority in terms of opting out not to reach an agreement but to be in conflict because they would then receive additional resources for special educational needs in a particular area?

Mr. Forsyth: No, the hon. Gentleman is not interpreting my words correctly. The additional provision will be made to take account of the needs of the child and an assessment will be made of the best placement for the child. The additional funds provided if the placement is at a self-governing school will be deducted from the education authority's grant in the same way as the provision for self-governing schools in respect of mainstream education. Therefore, there is no incentive to offload the responsibility on to the Secretary of State. That would be undesirable.
I am fairly confident—

Mr. McFall: I have considered special needs since the subject was raised in Committee. Taking an empirical case, there are parents with severely mentally handicapped children and parents with profoundly mentally handicapped children. After discussing the issue of special educational needs with those parents. I detect a division in the way they think their children should be educated. Some parents of severely mentally handicapped children have said that they do not want their children to be educated in the same environment as the profoundly mentally handicapped.
The character of a school can change within two or three years and if a school has opted out and the parents of severely mentally handicapped children are dominant, they may make a decision to admit only severely mentally handicapped children. What will happen to children who are profoundly mentally handicapped? If they cannot obtain a place at the school near their locality, will the local authority have to look again at its provision for the mentally handicapped?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to repeat what I have just told the House at great length. In the case of a particular placement, there will be dialogue between the education authority and the school. If there is disagreement over the needs in terms of provision or resources, the Secretary of State will have a locus. The removal of the requirement to hold a ballot and obtain the Secretary of State's permission to change the characteristics applies only to an improvement in provision for special needs, not to a diminution of it.
5 pm
I am confident that our proposals for special schools mean that they can opt for self-governing status in the certainty that they can continue fully to participate in the provision for special educational needs required for the


local education authority's area. Mainstream schools preparing to become self-governing will have the assurance of a continuing role in the education of recorded children. The amendment to clause 25 is technical and consequential.
For all those reasons, I commend the Government amendments to the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will recognise that his amendment is not necessary and that the commitments on funding that he seeks have already been given in Committee. I am not sure that I can go along with his attitude towards assisted places or his ideas on education, which appear to be concentrated around the concept of equality of outcome. That is best summarised in the remark made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, that if it is good enough for Henry McLeish's children it is good enough for everyone else. That view was definitely rejected. The clause, although ensuring fairness in the funding of schools, also allows for diversity and an extension of parental choice.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I live with the memory of a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh when the Minister pronounced his belief in cheque-book choice for education. Against that background, I find it not just difficult but absolutely impossible to accept that the Minister is sincerely concerned about Scottish education. Although I am liable to be criticised for apparently criticising my colleagues on the Front Bench, I must say that I can think of nothing more damaging than the opting out of special needs schools. The Minister is not just famous but notorious for running around Scotland telling the doctors and the teachers that they do not understand his proposals. No one except the Minister seems to understand his proposals, although I do not believe that even he understands the damage that will be done to special needs schools. He will live to regret his proposals.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) chided my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about a unitary Parliament. The days of centralised Administration have outlived their time. That will soon be the position in this country, as it is already in most other parliamentary democracies. No other developed parliamentary democracy allows a small group of unrepresentative people to impose their unwanted policies on an unwilling population, as is happening in Scotland. The House and the unitary system—of which the hon. Member for Tayside, North is so proud—are being brought into disrepute by the arrogance with which the Minister has proceeded not just with this legislation, but with the legislation on the National Health Service in Scotland. Conservative Members talk about the possibility of schools opting out rather than face closure, but my understanding is that this legislation is exactly the same as that for the NHS and that there will be no possibility of a school opting out simply because the local authority has proposed its closure.
It is worth pausing for a minute to think about what the Government propose for Scottish education. I do not doubt that the Minister will call it choice. Scotland has been forced to accept the assisted places scheme and the grant-aided sector of private education, which is funded largely by taxpayers' money. I cannot understand why Thatcherite Conservatives are in favour of giving taxpayers' money to private schools. I simply do not understand their logic. The Government are withdrawing

taxpayers' money from almost every organisation in the United Kingdom, but for some reason the grant-aided sector survives that philosophy.
Scotland will also have the Minister's opting-out system and the local education authority system. All that is designed for one purpose only—to sap the confidence of local authority education in Scotland. Although the Minister will not admit it, he is hoping that the local authority sector will fail and that his opting-out system will flourish. His assisted places scheme has little to do with education and everything to do with filling the empty desks in the grant-aided sector. That is why, in the final analysis, the decision about who should have places under the scheme lies not with the Secretary of State, not with Members of Parliament and not even with local education authorities; it lies with the headmasters of the receiving schools.
Scotland faces a range of education that the Minister will claim means choice, but its purpose is to sap the confidence of the state sector, which is so excellent in Scotland. Every Right-wing Government in any country have always been guilty of promising to the majority what they know only the minority can have. The Government know that this legislation relates only to the minority and that the vast majority will be left with a denuded education system. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West tabled his amendment in an attempt to prevent the Minister favouring schools that opt out, at the expense of local authority schools.
As most of my colleagues know, I shall not return to the House after the next general election—[Interruption.] Unlike the Minister, I am leaving voluntarily. He will be thrown out, and a few more Conservatives with him. In three years' time, when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is Secretary of State for Scotland and my own Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, (Mr. McLeish) is Education Minister, I shall be very disappointed if they do not put an end to the assisted places scheme and all the rubbish that the Minister has proposed today. I do riot know what sort of brains in the Scottish Office thought up such rubbish.
I have a feeling that I will not need to express that disappointment, because I have sufficient confidence in my hon. Friends. They know the damage that the Conservative party in Scotland, small though it is, is doing to Scottish education. It will be up to my colleagues to rebuild that system into the proud system it once was before the advent of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

Mr. Edward Leigh: I will lay a wager with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). I will wager a bottle of whisky that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), will be back in the next Parliament.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I want to make it absolutely clear that I accept that wager.

Mr. Leigh: I am delighted to find a sporting gentleman on the Opposition Benches. Those of us who served on Committee will remember that my hon. Friend the Minister offered us a bottle of whisky if we could answer the Highlands and Islands board's examination of 1890.
Only four of us took part and I came a very close second only because I had some small historical detail about a battle wrong.
I was interested that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) intervened in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Member for Hillsborough obviously thinks that English Members have an important contribution to make in these matters. We must have a contribution to make because we can inform Scottish Members about what has been happening in England.
Clearly the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has not done his research. If he had read the Committee proceedings or carried out research into what has been happening in England, he would have discovered that far from schools choosing opted-out status because they are in danger of being closed, or because they want increased capital allocations, they have chosen that status because the parents want to run their own schools.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan should have considered what has happened in Lincolnshire, in Skegness grammar school, which was the very first school to opt out. If he had considered that, he would have found that Conservative-controlled Lincolnshire county council had not the slightest intention of closing the school or cutting its capital allocation.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman could save himself a great deal of trouble. Due to the benefits of Scottish education, we can read the national newspapers and we can find out what is happening in England.

Mr. Leigh: I read national newspapers and Scottish newspapers with great interest. The hon. Lady may have noticed that The Scotsman published an article of mine recently about Europe, entitled "The Nightmare and the Dream". I am grateful to The Scotsman for giving me the opportunity to make my point.

Mr. Salmond: Is it not possible that Scottish and English parents take a different view of these things? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the prosecution of this legislation is a reason why the Conservative vote sank so low in Scotland last Thursday?

Mr. Leigh: That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows that that cannot be true. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear, this is permissive legislation. If it is true that this legislation is deeply unpopular among Scottish parents—and I do not know whether it is or not—I am prepared to give them the chance to find out what it is about. In Committee I asked the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) time and again whether he thought that any schools would opt out. He refused to answer me. We are facing entirely permissive legislation about which the House should not be too worried.

Mr. Bill Walker: In response to the comment made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), is my hon. Friend aware that, in an election in Kirriemuir, the region responsible for education in my constituency, the nationalist candidate was hammered? My constituents have never failed to understand my views or those of my

colleagues in respect of education, and they support me and my hon, Friend the Minister. There is no better way of showing that support than in a regional election where education was an important issue.

Mr. Leigh: We should be careful here. Our nationalist friends are still suffering from the result in Glasgow, so they are feeling a little fragile. We should not be too hard on them.
I must reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East about the unitary Parliament. That point has been made again and again in our debates. No doubt he was a Member of the House when the debate was going on, and he must be aware that grammar schools in Lincolnshire were being threatened with closure simply because a Labour-dominated Parliament was trying to force Lincolnshire to close its grammar schools. That Parliament was dominated by Labour Members because of the preponderance of Labour Members from Scotland. The arguments about a unitary Parliament do not hold water.
5.15 pm
These debates have revealed fear among Labour Members. They are afraid that there are Conservative Members who are prepared to take these arguments into the very heartlands of Labour party support in Scotland. We are not trying to ape what the Labour party has done. Our radical ideas will bear fruit. They have already borne fruit with the sale of council houses in giving ordinary people choices and opportunities which they would not have had before.
One point comes out strong and clear from our arguments: this is not an attack on the state sector. If we wanted to attack—and I use that phrase carefully—the state sector, would we not be talking about education vouchers or tax relief for sending children to private schools?

Mr. Douglas: That is exactly what the Minister is doing.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) should consider what is happening. We are strengthening the state sector. We are talking about creating magnet schools, flagship schools and schools which will provide an opportunity for the whole state sector. This debate is not about destroying the state sector; it is about improving it. I have no doubt that when people look back on these debates, they will see this legislation as a watershed in Scottish politics. They will see that for the first time, we had the courage to go out there and give choice and freedom to the people.
I will not let the hon. Member for Fife, Central forget his article in the Glasgow Herald. He stated:
The new right has temporarily defined the terms of the debate because they are willing to engage—the hijacking and exploitation by the right of parental choice is one of their most significant victories.
Was it not also significant that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that English Members—I presume he meant me, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) or one of my other colleagues who are present—dominated the debate? Perhaps we began to dominate the debate because we are in touch with what people really want. This is not about giving rights to minorities. It is about giving rights, opportunities and choices to people who have not been able to afford them


or take those opportunities hitherto. That is why we will find that this legislation is a watershed and why, from this moment on, we go onwards and upwards in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is it not even more significant that, from what I can detect, the Opposition might not vote against the Government amendments?

Mr. Leigh: I think that it is significant that the Opposition might not be prepared to vote on amendment No. 33. I challenge them to vote on their amendment. Are they not going to do that because they realise that the amendment is completely unnecessary and misguided? Perhaps they will not vote against it because my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee:
the amount of recurrent grant will be comparable to the provision made for schools still under education authority management … self-governing schools will remain in the public sector. Therefore, it is right that they should be treated no better and no worse than would be expected for equivalent schools managed by the education authority".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 20 April 1989; c.854.]
Amendment No. 33 is unnecessary and misguided. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West is really worried not about what this narrow technical part of the Bill contains, but that his heartland is being eroded by my hon. Friend the Minister, who will sweep back to power in Scotland in two or three years' time.

Mr. Henry McLeish: We have just heard eloquent testimony to why Scots want some control over affairs such as education. We have endured such speeches for nearly eight weeks in Committee. I am deeply apologetic to my hon. Friends for their having to listen to another two or three minutes.
I assure my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that when we take over the Scottish Office in 1991 or 1992 one of our first steps will be to phase out the assisted places scheme because it encourages nothing but privilege and it is a waste of public expenditure. The £10 million that will have been spent on the scheme by that time could be used more productively in the state sector, where I am sure that children get a better education.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman make that promise to the House. Does he recall that in Committee he said:
Some parts of the Bill might remain, some parts of it might be popular. It would be foolish for anyone to commit any Government of any political party to what they will do in two or three years' time."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 18 May 1989, c. 1501.]
Why has the hon. Gentleman changed his mind?

Mr. McLeish: The events of the past two or three days may have confirmed in the minds of civil servants and the Government that we are now on course—[Interruption.] It would be foolish for any party to give an overall commitment to everything, but let me make it clear that we shall phase out the assisted places scheme, and later on this evening we shall chart what we shall be doing with other parts of the Bill:
The Minister is still playing politics with some of the most sensitive educational issues in Scotland. I bitterly deplore the fact that special needs are still being used as a political football by the Minister and his colleagues on the hard Right, including the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Alan Amos: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes mentioned earlier the letter he had received from Mrs. Lamond. I investigated that letter a bit more effectively than did the hon. Gentleman. Mrs. Lamond wrote to the hon. Gentleman, but on the back of a number of considerations that he has not outlined to the House, the first being essentially political. The lady was advised to write to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), but he was regarded as too moderate to do anything purposeful with it. It was then suggested that somone a bit more extreme could deal with it more effectively on the Floor of the Committee. Therefore, the letter was sent to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, allowing him to use it in a most disgraceful fashion by taking one example of a lady with a handicapped child.
Since I have been a Member of the House there have been few occasions when an hon. Member has used a letter in such a way to bring contempt on the Government Benches and to illustrate that they have no policy on special needs. Under the guise of crocodile tears, they are seeking to suggest that they care about the future of Scottish education and special needs.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) to cast aspersions on a lady who has a handicapped son and who wrote to me as a member of the Committee to ask me to commend to the Minister the reason for including special schools within the Bill? Surely you should rule against the hon. Gentleman misusing an ordinary lady with a handicapped child for his political purposes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order.

Mr. McLeish: At the end of that contribution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you missed the hon. Gentleman laughing. That was interesting.
Special needs is a sensitive issue and we are worried that special needs schools in Scotland will be eligible to become self-governing schools. I want to put on the record once more that we deplore the decision that was taken in Committee, supported by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The issues involved in special needs schools are far too emotive and sensitive to be divorced from the work of the education authorities which have served them well over many years.

Mr. Amos: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No.
The Minister should put on ice the part of the Bill that deals with special needs until he has engaged in some realistic discussions. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a good point when he said that there had been no decent discussions with special needs groups in Scotland. It is outrageous that an area of such sensitivity has been treated in such a cavalier way by the Government, especially the Minister.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is making a great deal of the lady from Bearsden. Does he recall that the amendment that he tabled in Committee—[Interruption]—which he withdrew and which we acknowledge was a mistake on his part, was supported by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council? Is he arguing that not only the lady who wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) but the organisation which speaks for parents and parent-teacher councils in Scotland are out of step? Would it not be appropriate to take account of their wishes rather than responding in the prejudiced way that we have heard in the few moments that he has been addressing the House?

Mr. McLeish: The SPTC took that decision because the lady was a member of the SPTC and she asked it to write and prepare that amendment.
My third and final point relates to the possibility under clause 28 of the characteristics of a school being changed, which poses a direct and real threat to special needs provisions. Very few Opposition Members feel reassured by the Minister's words or actions on the amendments that have been tabled today. The Government should now take seriously special needs in Scotland, whether it be special needs schools or the integration of children with handicaps into local authority provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has tabled an amendment that has produced a good debate. I sincerely hope that when we call for a Division the Government will support what is a common sense and obvious way of moving forward.

Mrs. Fyfe: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has just said. There has been a disgraceful lack of consultation with bodies representing children with special needs. The imposition of the guillotine on the debate means that we have had no opportunity tonight to discuss the needs of Gaelic speakers and those adult users of school education who will have no opportunity to have their needs considered.
That is demonstrative of the Government's bullying attitude. They still believe, as we know from listening to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), that they have a right to impose their wishes on the basis of a tiny unrepresentative minority of 10 Scottish Tory Members of Parliament telling Scotland what it will have to suffer. Despite last week's election results, they are still imposing their views on us. They have no European Member of Parliament in Scotland. Glasgow, Central returned a Labour Member to the House, and the Tory candidate lost his deposit yet the Government claim that they have a basis for imposing their views on us.
The Government keep telling us about this being a unitary Parliament, which gives them the right to do what they are doing, but they seem to forget that under no circumstances could England have imposed upon it the views of a number of people who do not even represent one seventh of the Members of that Parliament. That is what happens to us and that is why their conduct risks breaking up the United Kingdom and they are complete fools if they do not realise that this is where this is leading. They should realise that once again last week the Scottish people told them that they do not want the Bill. In our doorstep discussions, a lot of anger was shown by people asking why we were having such a Bill when the vast majority of Scottish people clearly do not want it, any more than they

want the poll tax or the Government cuts, and so on. I hope that a Conservative Member will explain to us tonight on what grounds they can do this to the Scottish people.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are not only imposing the legislation on the people of Scotland but have not even consulted them about many of its provisions? In Committee, I challenged the Minister in respect of certain matters affecting special schools, asking whether he had consulted any group of parents representing such children. It was obvious that he had consulted none of them.

Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the Minister failed to consult relevant bodies representing children with special needs. However, why should he bother to do so when he already ignores the needs and wishes of the Scottish electorate as a whole?

It being half-past Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [3rd May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 266.

Division No. 248]
[5.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Doran, Frank


Alton, David
Douglas, Dick


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Eadie, Alexander


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fearn, Ronald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Margaret
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Flynn, Paul


Bell, Stuart
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Galbraith, Sam


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buckley, George J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clay, Bob
Haynes, Frank


Clelland, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dewar, Donald
Illsley, Eric






Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Johnston, Sir Russell
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kennedy, Charles
Reid, Dr John


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Jo


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livsey, Richard
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sillars, Jim


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallon, Seamus
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maxton, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Wall, Pat


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wareing, Robert N.


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morley, Elliott
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mullin, Chris
Wilson, Brian


Murphy, Paul
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Brien, William
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Allen McKay and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Allason, Rupert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Amos, Alan
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arbuthnot, James
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Batiste, Spencer
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Bellingham, Henry
Buck, Sir Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Budgen, Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burns, Simon


Benyon, W.
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butler, Chris


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carrington, Matthew


Body, Sir Richard
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Channon, Rt Hon Paul





Chope, Christopher
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Churchill, Mr
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knapman, Roger


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Conway, Derek
Knox, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lang, Ian


Cope, Rt Hon John
Latham, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan


Couchman, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Critchley, Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Curry, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lightbown, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dicks, Terry
Lord, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Dunn, Bob
McCrindle, Robert


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Emery, Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Evennett, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maude, Hon Francis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mellor, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Harris, David
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mudd, David


Hayward, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Heddle, John
Neubert, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rhodes James, Robert


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Irving, Charles
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kilfedder, James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas






Shaw, David (Dover)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Roger
Trippier, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speed, Keith
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Speller, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Nicholas


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thome, Neil
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Thurnham, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, up to the end of schedule 3.

Clause 3

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT AND THE ARTICLES OF CONSTITUTION

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 2, line 24, leave out
'of the same number as had the school board on the relevant date".

No. 62, in page 2, line 28, leave out
`of the same number as had the school board on that date'.

No. 63, in page 2, line 32, leave out
'of such number, greater than had the school board of co-opted members on that date, as shall be specified in the articles of constitution.'.

No. 64, in page 2, line 34, leave out
`subject to subsection (2) below.'

No. 65, in page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 47.

No. 66, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (5) and (6)'.

No. 67, page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
'(6) The duty, under subsection (4) above, of an interim board of management shall be construed as a duty to ensure that the election of the parent and staff members who are to succeed them on the board of management takes place as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within three months after the incorporation date.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 1

THE SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT

Amendment made: No. 111, in page 50, line 11, leave out
'and such specification shall accord with section 3(1) of this Act'

and insert
`so however that the first such specification in respect of the board shall require that—


(a) the parent members first elected shall be of greater number than had the school board on the relevant date;
(b) the staff members first elected shall be of the same number as had the school board on that date; and
(c) the appointed members ("appointed" not including persons deemed appointed by virtue of paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4 to this Act) shall be of greater number than had the school board on that date.

2A. In paragraph 2 above the reference to the relevant date is to the date immediately preceding the incorporation date; and for the purposes of that paragraph numbers shall be determined as if any vacancy in the membership of the school board were filled.'

No. 112, in page 50, line 16, leave out
',or to be an appointed member'.

No. 113, in page 50, line 18, leave out from 'person' to`; and' in line 22 and insert
`who is eligible for election to the board of management shall not be eligible for appointment to the board'.

No. 114, in page 50, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 4

MEMBERS' TENURE OF OFFICE

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 3, line 16, leave out `subsection' and insert 'subsections (2) and'.

No. 69, in page 3, line 16, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 18 and insert
`member of a board of management'.

No. 70, in page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Where the parent members first elected to a board of management constitute—

(a) an even number, half;
(b) an odd number, the next whole number less than half,

shall hold office for a term of two years only, the individuals whose term of office is affected by this subsection being determined (in the absence of the agreement of all such members as to who those individuals shall be) by the drawing of lots.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 7

POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARD OF MANAGEMENT

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 4, line 13, after `(b), insert
`subject to subsection (2) below and to section (disposal of land by board of management) of this Act,'.

No. 72, in page 4, line 47 at end insert—
'—(5A) The board of management of a self-governing school shall, in the exercise of their functions, have regard to a need to make improvements in the provision which the school makes for pupils with special educational needs.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 13

INITIATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 6, line 41, after 'are', insert—
'(a) in a case other than that provided for in paragraph (b) below,'.

No. 26 in page 6, line 42, leave out 'a number of and insert 'at least thirty'.

No. 27, in page 6, line 43, after 'school', insert
`and that the number of such parents so signing must be'.

No. 28, in page 6, line 43, leave out 'parents' and insert `persons'.

No. 29, in page 6, line 46, after 'maintained', insert
`, in respect of the school,'.

No. 30, in page 6, line 47, at end insert
`; and
(b) in a case where the names of fewer than sixty persons so appeared, that the request must be signed by such number of parents of pupils in attendance at the school as would constitute a simple majority of those parents were their total number equal to the number of persons whose names so appeared.'.

No. 31, in page 7, line 2, leave out
`parent had a child who was'

and insert
`person is the parent or.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 14

BALLOT OF PARENTS ON QUESTION OF ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 8, line 2, after `section', insert —(a)'.

No. 74, in page 8, line 3, leave out
`the whole or any part of'.

No. 75, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—
`(not being expenses mentioned in paragraph (b) below); and
(b) the education authority shall pay, or reimburse the school board in respect of, any expenses incurred in connection with, or in contemplation of, legal proceedings (whether or not instituted) arising out of—

(i) the holding of the ballot; or
(ii) the publication under section 16(2) of this Act, following the determination of the result of the ballot, of proposals for acquisition of self-governing status for the school.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 3

ARRANGEMENTS IN RESPECT OF BALLOT OF PARENTS REGARDING ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 56, line 1, after `(a)', insert
`without prejudice to sub-paragraph (b) below,.'.

No. 116, in page 56, line 5, leave out 'other'.

No. 117, in page 56, line 6, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.

No. 118, in page 56, line 9, leave out 'required by a notice under' and insert 'held by virtue of.

No. 119, in page 56, line 10, after 'which', insert
`in the case of a ballot required by a notice under subsection (1) of that section'.

No. 120, in page 56, line 21, after '4', insert '(a) and'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 15

FRESH BALLOT

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 8, line 7, after '15', insert—'(1)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 77.

No. 1, in clause 16, page 8, line 24 leave out 'simple' and insert 'two-thirds'.

No. 5, in page 8, line 24 leave out 'simple' and insert '75 per cent.'.

No. 39, in page 8, line 24 leave out 'simple' and insert 'two-thirds'.

No. 59, in page 8, line 24, leave out 'simple' and insert `67 per cent'.

Government amendment No. 78.

No. 6, in page 8, line 24, at end insert,
'provided that the majority represents at least two thirds of all parents eligible to vote.'.

No. 2, in clause 28, page 17, line 41, leave out 'simple' and insert 'two-thirds'.

No. 60, in page 17, line 41, leave out 'simple' and insert `67 per cent'.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously I accept your selection of amendments, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I have put down our names to amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Will there be an opportunity for us to vote on those amendments, particularly amendment No. 1?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The timing of the guillotine poses a difficulty. This debate must end at 6.30; after that, only Government amendments can be taken. I hope that I have given the right hon. Gentleman enough information for him to be able to judge what he should do.

Mr. Forsyth: These amendments take us over some very familiar territory. I feel that I should tell the House just how familiar it is to those of us who served on the Committee, where we discussed a similar group of amendments which had been tabled by the Opposition, providing that, when the turnout for the ballot was less than 50 per cent., there should be a second ballot. Other amendments proposed to replace the simple majority with various more or less sophisticated alternatives. The Opposition again moved that the simple majority be replaced by a two-thirds majority of parents eligible to vote. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) tabled an amendment that would have replaced the simple majority with a simple majority of those eligible to vote.
We had a brief but constructive discussion, on the basis of which the Government took on board the substance of the Opposition's amendments which would make provision for a second ballot if fewer than 50 per cent. voted. On that basis, the Committee was content to let the amendments be withdrawn. The amendments that we are discussing today honour our commitment in full. I am slightly surprised that various alternative formulae have been brought in. The new proposals in today's amendments are all variations on a theme. We must keep the matter of the ballot in proportion. I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is essentially a test of opinion, carrying no Executive decision.
The process of acquiring self-governing status involves several stages. First, there must be a decision to put the matter to a ballot. That is taken either by a resolution of the school board or by a request by a stated percentage of the parents involved. Then the ballot takes place. The question on which parents are asked to vote is not whether the school shall become self-governing; neither they nor the school board will have the power to decide that. They are asked simply whether they are content that proposals for self-governing status should be put forward. If they are not content, that is the end of the matter. If, however, they return a majority in favour, the school board first Las to


draw up—[Interruption.] I am smiling at the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who, having spent so many hours in Committee, seems only now to have realised what these very important provisions are all about. If parents are not content, nothing further can happen. If, however, they return a majority in favour, the school board first has to draw up and publish proposals for self-governing status.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that, if the majority of parents are not in favour of self-governing status, nothing further can happen, yet the Secretary of State for Education and Science for England and Wales has allowed a school in Birmingham to opt out, although fewer than half the parents at that school voted for it.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pointing out that, contrary to what his party has been saying, the proposals that we have put forward for the reform of education in Scotland are not carbon copies of those for south of the border. He is well aware of the provisions that we have included in the Bill. The amendments that I have tabled provide that, where fewer than half the parents participate in the ballot, there must be a second ballot.
I was explaining the procedure that has to be followed. If the parents return a majority in favour, their school board has to draw up and publish proposals for self-governing status. These are to be sent to the education authority and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will have to be published in newspapers and otherwise made publicly available. It will then be open to the whole world to make its views known on the proposals. Their representations are to be directed to the Secretary of State. He has to receive them and consider them all. Only in the light of all the representations does he make a decision on whether the school should become self-governing.
It is quite clear that in practice the representations made to the Secretary of State will have to weigh with him; he is not bound to accept a positive ballot result. There will be cases where, notwithstanding the support of the majority in a ballot, the Secretary of State may decide, for good reasons, that the school is not to be allowed to become self governing. He may not be convinced that the school really has a future—for example, if its numbers are in decline. He will have to take those factors into account. He will also have to take account of representations that may be made by the education authority. It will want to apprise him of the full situation in the area—of the other schools and their pupil numbers, of its plans for them, of the implications for the education authority if the school in question should become self-governing. That, I hope, will begin to put the question of a ballot into some kind of perspective.
It is also relevant to look at the kind of ballot results that may be expected, the kind of psychological effect that they may have and the relative weight which the Secretary of State might give to a given result. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has obviously been studying the question. As he knows, some experience of these matters is building up under the English legislaton. I understand that 64 ballots have already been held on grant-maintained status under the Education Reform Act 1988. Of these, 15 were negative—in some cases quite

decisively so—another 40 would have passed the two-thirds majority rule that is proposed by some of the amendments that are before us today. Of those, 36 would have passed the more stringent test of a 75 per cent. majority. It is quite clear that we may therefore expect that, whatever test is set, there will be a clear-cut result in the great majority of cases.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opposition of certain Labour Members to these proposals is very strange? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) opted into the private sector when he was a teacher?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is quite right. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) says that that is very old. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman also says that he, too, is very old. We believe in choice in education. We also think that the hon. Member for Cathcart was entitled to teach in the independent sector, if that was his wish. It is a free society.
It is only on the other side of the House that, as we heard from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) the doctrine applies that if it is good enough for Henry McLeish's children it is good enough for everyone else's children. It is only the Opposition who seek to deny choice. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Fife, Central is mouthing, "Privilege." He has made several attacks on the assisted places scheme. He has denounced it as privilege. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is confirming that. Almost half the total number of pupils on the assisted places scheme come from families with an income of less than £8,500 a year. It is typical of the Labour party that it would limit choice and deny education of that sort to those who would otherwise be unable to afford it.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend gave some interesting statistics, but is he able to say how many of the votes were cast in the face of the likely closure of the school?

Mr. Forsyth: I cannot give my hon. Friend the precise figure, but he is mistaken if he believes that the majority of the schools were facing closure. During our discussion of the last set of amendments my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) pointed out that the majority of the schools were not facing closure. The first school in the United Kingdom to go for self-governing status, Skegness grammar school, was not in that position.
I commend to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) a very interesting article in The Daily Telegraph some months ago. I shall send a copy of the article to him. It analysed the schools in England that have gone for self-governing status and the reasons for them doing so. It also gave an analysis of the schools that intended to go for self-governing status and showed that the proportion of schools that were not facing some kind of organisational upheaval, such as closure, had been reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that the principal motivation would be the belief that, by taking decisions at local level, free of the education authority, schools would be more responsive to the needs of parents and would provide a better service.
That is why it is essential that parents in Scotland should have the same freedom and opportunity as is so clearly sought in England.
It is a mark of the peculiarities of the Labour party in Scotland that it seems to take the view that there is something wrong with Scottish parents—that they are unable to exercise choice and bring about the kind of management of schools that appears to be working so successfully south of the border.

Sir Hector Monro: I gave my hon. Friend the figures on Second Reading. Of the 37 schools which, by 6 March, had voted to opt out, 27 faced closure.

Mr. Forsyth: I have not checked my hon. Friend's figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] However, he knows now that the measure is even more popular than he might have imagined. He quoted a figure of 37, but there have now been 64 ballots. A proportionately larger number of those schools are not faced with closure. I have just told my hon. Friend that all the evidence from the survey carried out by The Daily Telegraph showed that, as more schools came forward for self-governing status, the proportion of schools that were facing some kind of catastrophe had been reduced. I do not believe that there is any difference between the figures that my hon. Friend quoted and the point that I have just made to the House.
I am fairly certain that an opting-out ballot will, in almost all cases, be a matter of such acute interest that it will produce a high turnout and a decisive result. If there is a low turnout, our amendment, which picks up that tabled by the Opposition—I take it that the Oppposition tabled their amendment seriously and were committed to it—would give the board one more chance and that would have to be final. If the board failed to organise the second ballot, the matter would go no further, and rightly so. I understand that that has happened in one place in England.
We are concerned about the minority of cases in which there is a positive result but with a smallish majority. The fact that a majority might be relatively slender would have to be taken seriously into account by the Secretary of State. He would have to find out what other evidence there was of genuine parental support for the school and a genuine understanding by the parents of the implications of self-governing status and a genuine will to take on that responsibility. The Secretary of State would need some assurance on these matters in any case, but the strongly positive ballot result would tend to confirm that there was a will and understanding among the parents—but even in that case it would not be absolutely conclusive. Where the majority is more narrow, the Secretary of State will naturally attach proportionately less weight to it.
6 pm
I return to the point that the ballot result itself in no way determines the Secretary of State's decision. In many cases it will be only marginally persuasive to him. A ballot is simply a test, taken at a very early stage, to find out whether the idea of self-governing status should be taken any further. It is only after the ballot result that the school board has to get down to working out full proposals.
Against that background, the House should now consider what the reaction would be if the test were something higher than a simple majority. It would mean that a school might have a ballot in which there was a very high turnout and a majority of 60 per cent. Without

further ado, we would then have to say to parents at that school, "I am sorry, but you cannot even apply for self-governing status—your application cannot be considered." In such a case there would be an absolute outcry. People simply would not understand the logic of a law under which, despite a clear majority support in a ballot for the proposition, that proposition could not even reach the stage of being published for wider public views to be sought upon it. That would be perceived as a negation of democracy.
Again, experience in England may be instructive. I am told that there have been nine ballots at which there was a majority for grant-maintained status of less than two thirds. Most of those cases are still pending, so I am not able to comment upon them. However, I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has rejected one and has approved two others. Are we to say that, when a school can bid for grant-maintained status in England and Wales on the basis of a 56 per cent. majority in a ballot, it can get approval—which is by no means automatic—from the Secretary of State, the same right should be denied to parents of children in schools in Scotland?

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend know of any instance in parliamentary or local government procedure which requires a two-thirds majority?

Mr. Forsyth: Opposition Members are referring to constitutional arrangements, but my hon. Friend makes his point very well, and I support him.
The figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was seeking have magically come into my possession. I can tell him that, at 9 June, of the 46 schools that have voted in favour of self-governing status, there were 26 to which no change was proposed. Only 10 were facing closure and 10 were facing other significant changes. That updates the information that my hon. Friend reported to the House on Second Reading.
I know that there are fears that the legislation might be used by minority of parents to hijack a school into self-governing status. All such groups thrive on apathy. They rely on getting a vote pushed through when, so to speak, no one is noticing. In short, they rely on a low turnout. I am certainly not in favour of letting unrepresentative groups take control of a school. The best test of that is to see what number of supporters they can muster in a high turnout. That is why we have taken on board the concern expressed by the Opposition and provided the safety net that, where there is a turnout of less than 50 per cent. of those entitled to vote in the ballot, there must be a second ballot forthwith if the matter is to go any further.
I am convinced that the amendments are sensible and are much readily intelligible to the public than any other formula. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said, people understand a simple majority and we should stick to it. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at this stage of the debate. The House will agree that the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) relating to clauses 16 and 28 refer to crucial parts of the Bill. I shall be extremely brief, as I know that other Members wish to speak.
What my hon. Friend the Minister said is all right as far as it goes, and I welcome the change that he has made since Committee—that, in the case of a low turnout, there should be an opportunity to move to a second ballot. But my hon. Friend addressed only the problem of a small turnout. He is right to address that problem and I welcome it, but he has ignored two things: first, when there is a large turnout but only a small majority; secondly, when there is a small turnout on a second ballot. My hon. Friend dealt with neither of those possibilities.
I am delighted that in England and Wales there has been evidence of a large turnout. If there is a large turnout, hopefully the problems will not be so great. However, if there is a small majority, there is the danger of a thoroughly divisive situation. My hon. Friend spoke of hijacking by small groups. That is one danger—if 51 per cent. were in favour and 49 per cent. were against, that would produce a divisive situation in the community served by that particular school. Equally, when there is a small turnout, it is even more important that it should be clear that a large percentage are in favour of the proposal.
That is important in the decision whether to opt out, and it is equally important, if not more so, in any decision to change the character of the school. If a school opted out it might continue in a similar way under different management. I shall not go into all the arguments, but amendment No. 2 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries is even more relevant to any decision to change the character of a school.
My hon. Friend the Minister tried to play all that down. He pointed out that we are only triggering off a procedure. I accept that, but he must recognise that the ballot is the last real, open test of public opinion. After that, everything happens not exactly behind closed doors, but at people's discretion to consider one factor or another or to consider representations. It is the last real test of public opinion, and to that extent the numbers voting and the percentage of the vote are absolutely critical in deciding whether a school opts out.
My hon. Friend said that, if my amendment were accepted, and the vote were just below two thirds, it would be a negation of democracy if the proposals were turned down on that basis. That is nonsense. We are talking about a very big change, a total constitutional change as it affects a particular school, either in relation to opting out or in relation to the character of that school. It is not undemocratic to have a test higher than 51 per cent. in constitutional changes, whether they relate to public bodies or private organisations. It is nothing unusual, and it is certainly not a negation of democracy, to look for a test above 51 per cent.
If it is proposed to change the status quo—this is a major change from the status quo in Scottish education—we need a much higher test. Although I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister proposes in relation to small turn outs, I do not believe that it addresses the main question. The ideal solution is my hon. Friend's amendments, which I welcome, and to have grafted into them the test of a two-thirds majority when the ballot takes place. Unless my hon. Friend the Minister can give some sign that he would be prepared to go further than he is tonight and write the two-thirds majority into the ballot, I shall certainly find it difficult to support it.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Hon. Members are in some difficulty because of the timetable motion. This is an important debate. The matter may have been well ventilated in Committee, but, for many hon. Members, it is the one, and unfortunately all too brief, opportunity to debate a central issue. It will be an embittering and unfortunate business if we cannot vote on the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). It would make a mockery of the procedures of the House and the way in which we conduct our business. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I can only have a very fast run at the arguments. I certainly cannot deploy the kind of case that I would normally wish to deploy in a matter of this importance.
Of course I welcome amendments Nos. 76 and 77. After all, they were originally Opposition amendments in Committee, and they were redrafted for technical reasons and accepted in principle by the Government, and, in response to the Government's promises, they now appear on the Amendment Paper. I welcome them because they ensure a second ballot if less than 50 per cent. of all those eligible to vote are the majority in the first ballot. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must look beyond that and the two-thirds provision. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 do exactly that. It is simply common sense that, when something as fundamental and radical as opting out of the normal local authority system is suggested, there should be adequate safeguards to ensure a proper basis of support.
It is well known that the Opposition oppose the concept of opting out. We regard it as a fragmentation of the school system. In its wake, it may bring changes in fundamental characteristics that are based on the perceived interests of a small group of children rather than the advantage of the majority. That we are opposed in principle to the opting-out clauses does not mean that safeguards should not be built in where possible, and we should look for sensible improvements. I do not have a great deal of confidence that the Minister will agree with us, but at least he should have the opportunity positively to respond, and the House should have an opportunity to make a considered decision.
I was interested in what the Minister said. We hear a great deal about power to parents and trusting parents. Of course, the Minister is as capable of expediency as everyone else. When it comes to this argument, he hurries to tell us that the ballot is a triggering mechanism, that it does not matter very much and that the power does not lie with the parents, so we do not need to worry too much about how the ballot is conducted or what the safeguards are. He cannot have it both ways. The ballot is important, and it is essential that we get it right. I do not think that it would be safe to leave it as it is in the Bill at the moment, as a simple majority. That is why I support the two-thirds requirement proposed in amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
To use what I understand to be a familiar word in the teaching profession now, we do not want a capricious result. We do not want a situation in which parents, under pressure or in particular circumstances—perhaps in haste, to repent later at leisure—take a decision for the wrong reasons. There has been a statistical argument about the number of schools that have shown interest in the opting-out procedure because of the threat of closure or some other radical change in their boundaries or catchment areas, but I will not bandy statistics.
When he replied to the Second Reading debate, the Minister rather derided my attempt to suggest that this was an important factor, and he produced figures to show that, out of 59 schools that had become, to use his phrase, involved in the process, about 33 were threatened by closure. The figures may have changed since then. No one can deny that that is the kind of situation that will suddenly make opting out look spuriously attractive in a particular set of circumstances.
6.15 pm
That underlines the dangers and the need to make sure that there is a proper basis of support among parents before we go down what we regard as an often dangerous road, and what we all agree is a significant road.
Next there is the technical, perhaps, but important electoral argument. The presence of one child can give rise to a different and varying franchise. I admit to using a little ingenuity, but I am told that one can find cases in which one child can produce—if that is the right word—six votes in the ballot, and certainly not uncommonly three or four votes. Again, 50 per cent. or a simple majority of 50 per cent. plus one, on examination, might turn out to be very different indeed.
I am sorry that I cannot put my argument rather more fully, but if we ignore the right hon. Gentleman's amendments Nos. 1 and 2, we will put an element of risk into the system, and that is unwise. I echo the slogan of another long-off, far-off, battle—there is certainly a case for full-hearted consent in these matters because of the tremendous implications of opting out for individual schools.
Obviously, I did not serve on the Committee, but I can remember the exchanges on Second Reading. The Minister told us that we already have selection in local authority schools, and suggested that anyone who was worried about the introduction of selection because of opting out was jousting at windmills and raising false fears. The Minister went on to explain that what he meant by local authority selection was, for example, a school in my constituency, Knightswood, which has a specialist centre for dance. The more I thought about it, the more curious and odd I found the Minister's argument. The truth is that, in mainstream academic terms, the reintroduction of selection is a possibility further down the road, with an alteration in fundamental characteristics.
That merely underlines the need to make sure that, if parents are to accept this and try to trigger the process, there is a genuine basis on which to proceed. Given all the variations and uncertainties, I do not believe that a simple majority adequately does that. For that reason alone, I commend amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to the House in the genuine hope that we can be sensible enough about the conduct of our business to ensure that the House has a chance to vote on them.

Sir Hector Monro: I will add only a few words, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has clearly put his case and is supported by the Opposition. It is disappointing that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken only a tiny step forward to the position in which he should be, bearing in mind that the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, The Church of Scotland and a

MORI poll are all firmly in favour of the two-thirds majority. My hon. Friend the Minister might have moved a great deal closer towards us.
I feel strongly about this matter. The Minister knows that I am not in favour of opting out. The present structure is perfectly adequate, and there is no need to introduce this measure. I agree with my right hon. Friend that, whatever my hon. Friend the Minister says about this being only a triggering mechanism, it is crucial. It is the key issue in respect of school views on opting out. As my right hon. Friend said, the character of schools is at risk—perhaps the denominational aspect, catchment areas or other issues. I refer in particular to primary school catchment areas, which my hon. Friend the Minister says will be taken into account by consultation. That is not good enough. One wants a clear-cut view. Do the schools actually want to opt out? The only way to get a firm opinion on such a crucial matter is to have a figure substantially above 50 per cent., and that is why my right hon. Friend and I have set two thirds as the required majority.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is on dangerous ground if he is suggesting that on all important constitutional changes, a two-thirds majority is required. For example, should we have a two-thirds majority in a referendum about a Scottish Parliament? He is also in difficulty in addressing his remarks to a situation where, say, six out of 10 parents have voted to govern their own school. He is saying, in effect, "No, under my amendment you cannot do that." My hon. Friend is putting himself in a difficult position.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend may think that; I do not. I know where I stand, and we have had constitutional referendums with various percentages thrown in. My hon. Friend is not on to a good point, and I advise him to come to Scotland and speak to parents who want to opt out. As the Minister said, if they do not want to opt out, they need not do so. It is important that we have a substantial majority, far above 50 per cent., so that the true nature of the vote is brought home to those who must make these decisions.

Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) may not be from Scotland, I am, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will appreciate that, while I respect his point of view, it is important for him to understand that there are others who hold a contrary point of view. When schools in my constituency can be closed or fundamentally changed on a simple majority in local government, I cannot see why my hon. Friend is making such an issue of this matter.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend may have a point, but it is wrong in terms of what we are discussing. When, on a majority decision, it is decided to close a school, consider the position in which the Government find themselves in giving away the right for all school closures to be approved by the Secretary of State, albeit in this ease in denominational schools and schools in rural areas. Had the Secretary of State retained that right, he could have looked at the whole issue and prevented a school from closing if the parent did not want it to close. Certainly he would have been in a position to prevent more closures than will be the case as the clause is drafted, simply


because the option will not rest with him, except for denominational schools and special travelling arrangements applying to schools in rural areas.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: If my hon. Friend is arguing that a simple majority is all right for making closure decisions or changes to the character of schools where they are in the control of the education authority—on the basis that approval would be required by the Secretary of State—that is precisely what we have in the Bill for self-governing status, where a simple majority and the consent and approval of the Secretary of State is required. That is the position he is arguing should pertain in cases of school closures where a simple majority is required. There is nothing more fundamental to changing the character of a school than closing it.

Sir Hector Monro: I am being accused of adopting a wrong philosophy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to a simple majority, and I presume he meant a simple majority among parents and in the education authority. I am saying that that whole issue need not have arisen had the Secretary of State retained the right to decide whether a school should or should not be closed, a right which he had until 1980, a right which I exercised frequently when I was a Minister. No school was closed except by the wish of the parents, which I do not think ever occurred.
In other words, hon. Members have been raising issues that are irrelevant to opting out, which is a fundamental and voluntary decision. It is not an action taken under compulsion, like a local authority school closure. For that reason, it is essential that more than 50 per cent. of parents are seen to be in favour.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not come a long way towards accepting the amendment. Unless he is willing to say that in another place he will go a great deal further, I shall not be able to support the Government in this matter.

Sir Russell Johnston: I will not delay the House on this matter. I plead with the Minister to take seriously what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said. The logic and force of the arguments that have been put by hon. Members have been powerful collectively and are important from the Minister's point of view if opting out is to be accepted in the community in which it occurs and is not to be regarded as divisive and narrow. I urge him to reconsider his attitude to the amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker: I speak more in sorrow than in anger, having found disappointing the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I appreciate how strongly they feel about the issue, but I cannot understand how they can be seen to be supporting, and be supported by, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), because what he said this evening will be quoted back at him every time he speaks about any sort of assembly in Edinburgh—[Interruption.]—in relation to a two-thirds majority.
Equally, I hope that, whenever Labour Members speak in future to Ministers about closure proposals or changes

to schools in their constituencies—changes proposed by a local authority based on a simple majority—they will remember the arguments that were adduced in this debate.
We have been asked to consider what would happen if there was a 51 to 49 per cent. split. Such a vote would cause a division in the local community, it has been said. In fact, divisions in the local community will be caused either way; if it is 49 per cent. one way and 51 per cent. the other or the other way round, divisions will result.
It is important to recognise that an issue such as this cannot be looked at in isolation. It must be viewed against all other activities stemming from legislation that has been passed by this and previous Governments in which we have not stated that, at local authority level, where major decisions are made—not just in education but in many other areas—other than a simple majority basis should apply. To say that there must be a majority of two thirds in all cases, especially at the local level, would require us to change virtually all other legislation, and I doubt whether that is what Labour Members are after.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the desire on both sides of the House to vote on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. That can happen only if he resumes his seat before 6.30 and allows that vote to take place. I hope he will do that.

Mr. Walker: It is not my intention to do anything that would frustrate the wishes of the House, but having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries speak on this issue, I do not want the people of Scotland, in particular my constituents, to think that they are the only Members with a view in Scotland on this matter. That is vital to me, because I fear that some Members think that the message coming from me and others is not the message that the people of Scotland want to hear. I want to be certain that my voice is heard and that nobody is left in doubt about where I stand on matters requiring a two-thirds majority.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there nothing you can do to stop this deliberate filibuster—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We are in the middle of a debate and the point that the hon. Member raises is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Allan Stewart: It must be the first time that an hon. Member who has been speaking for only two or three minutes—I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—has been accused of filibustering. Will my hon. Friend agree that substantial support for the Bill comes from his and my constituents and from many others?

Mr. Bill Walker: I want the House to understand that, if there is a division of views—obviously there is—those of us who support these measures must be seen to be supporting them and to be speaking up in support of them.

Mr. Dewar: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would certainly not accuse the hon. Gentleman of filibustering. Like the House, he is the victim of circumstances. However, we are extremely anxious to have a vote on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Is there any way in which you can help us in this matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not unless I can now put the Question.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Canavan: Sit down and let us have the vote.

Mr. Bill Walker: If there has been any filibustering, it has been caused by Opposition interventions. Opposition Members will not allow me even three minutes to speak on a matter about which I feel strongly. The issue of two thirds is important and fundamental, and not just to this piece of legislation because it affects all other legislation. That is why we must think carefully about what we are doing. It is interesting that a simple majority is sufficient in any Committee in this House and that a simple majority is sufficient—

It being half-past six O'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [3rd May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put all the Questions on amendments moved by the Government up to the end of clause 75—

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Does any hon. Member wish to vote against any of those amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] What are those amendments?

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please number the amendments?

Mr. Dewar: It would be useful if the Government amendments could be put individually because we shall certainly now vote against some of them.
Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, up to the end of clause 75.

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 8, line 21, at end insert—
`(2) Where in a ballot held in accordance with section 14 or 28 of this Act (other than a ballot held by virtue of this subsection) the total number of votes cast by persons eligible to vote in the ballot is less than fifty per cent. of the persons so eligible, the board shall, in accordance with the said section 14 or as the case may be 28, hold a fresh ballot.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 16

PROPOSALS FOR ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 8, line 24, at end insert
'(no declaration having been made under subsection (1) of section 15 of this Act as regards the ballot and no fresh ballot being required by virtue of subsection (2) of that section)'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Amendment proposed, No. 79, in page 8, line 29, leave out 'by regulations'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 201.

Division No. 249]
[6.31 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Favell, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel


Allason, Rupert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amess, David
Freeman, Roger


Amos, Alan
French, Douglas


Arbuthnot, James
Gill, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Ashby, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Aspinwall, Jack
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Atkinson, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gregory, Conal


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bellingham, Henry
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bendall, Vivian
Hanley, Jeremy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, John


Benyon, W.
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Body, Sir Richard
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayward, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Heddle, John


Bottomley, Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bowis, John
Hill, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hind, Kenneth


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bright, Graham
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Irvine, Michael


Butler, Chris
Irving, Charles


Butterfill, John
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Janman, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Carrington, Matthew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Kilfedder, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Conway, Derek
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knox, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Lang, Ian


Couchman, James
Latham, Michael


Cran, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Critchley, Julian
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Curry, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lightbown, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dicks, Terry
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dunn, Bob
McCrindle, Robert


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)






Maclean, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, Rt Hon John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speed, Keith


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Miller, Sir Hal
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stokes, Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Summerson, Hugo


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thorne, Neil


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Norris, Steve
Trippier, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patnick, Irvine
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Warren, Kenneth


Price, Sir David
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhodes James, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wood, Timothy


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Yeo, Tim


Rost, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Michael Fallon and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Tom Sackville.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blunkett, David


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Buckley, George J.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Battle, John
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bell, Stuart
Clay, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blair, Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)





Corbyn, Jeremy
McLeish, Henry


Cryer, Bob
Maclennan, Robert


Cummings, John
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Douglas, Dick
Michael, Alun


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eadie, Alexander
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fatchett, Derek
Morley, Elliott


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, John
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galbraith, Sam
Pike, Peter L.


Galloway, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Prescott, John


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Randall, Stuart


Golding, Mrs Llin
Redmond, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grocott, Bruce
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rowlands, Ted


Haynes, Frank
Ruddock, Joan


Heffer, Eric S.
Salmond, Alex


Henderson, Doug
Sedgemore, Brian


Hinchliffe, David
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Short, Clare


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sillars, Jim


Howells, Geraint
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Illsley, Eric
Snape, Peter


Ingram, Adam
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Greville
Steinberg, Gerry


Johnston, Sir Russell
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Straw, Jack


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lambie, David
Turner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Leighton, Ron
Wall, Pat


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wallace, James


Litherland, Robert
Walley, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wareing, Robert N.


Loyden, Eddie
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McAllion, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McFall, John
Wilson, Brian


McKelvey, William
Winnick, David






Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Allen McKay

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 8, line 37, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c).

No. 81, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'and'.

No. 82, in page 9, line 6, at end insert—
'; and
(g) give such other information as may be prescribed.'. No. 83, in page 9, line 15, leave out 'provision, if any' and insert 'range of provisions'.

No. 84, in page 9, line 15, leave out 'makes' and insert 'has'.

No. 85, in page 9, line 41, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 48 and insert—
'persons who are members of the school board shall be constituted as an interim board of management on the school's becoming self-governing but that the interim board shall he succeeded, within three months after the incorporation date, by a board of management the parent members and staff members of which will be elected and on which the parent members will constitute an overall majority.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 18

REJECTION OR APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 10, line 32, at end insert—
`(initially an interim board of management)'.

No. 87, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'initial'.

No. 88, in page 10, line 42, after first 'of, insert 'interim'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 4

INITIAL CONSTITUTION OF BOARD OF MANAGEMENT

Amendments made: No. 121, in page 56, line 26, leave out 'Initial Constitution Of' and insert 'Interim'.

No. 122, in page 56, line 27, leave out 'The' and insert 'An interim'.

No. 123, in page 56, line 30, leave out 'Subject to section 3(1) of this Act'.

No. 124, in page 56, line 32, after 'the', insert 'interim'.

No. 125, in page 56, line 34, after 'the', insert 'interim'.

No. 126, in page 56, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
';
(c) co-opted members shall become members of the interim board of management being deemed appointed members thereof.'.

No. 127, page 56, line 38, leave out 'sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) of'.

No. 128, in page 56, line 39, leave out 'for such period as' and insert—
'until the interim board of management is succeeded by the first board of management to which members are elected, regardless of whether any period which,'.

No. 129, in page 56, line 41, at end insert—
'expires before the date of the relevant election'.

No. 130, in page 56, line 42, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—
'3. An interim board of management shall cease to exist on the fulfilment of their duty under section 3(4) of this Act and shall thereupon be succeeded as board of management by the parent members and staff members to whose election that

duty related, together with the person who is for the time being the head teacher of the school.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 5

TRANSITION OF ELIGIBLE SCHOOLS TO SELF-GOVERNING STATUS

Amendments made: No. 131, in page 57, line 41, leave out second 'and'.

No. 132, in page 57, line 44, at end insert—
'and
(e) that without prejudice to the generality of section 10(1)(a) of the 1988 Act (information and reports) and even in so far as that section might not otherwise compel compliance, the education authority shall provide the school board with such information as the board may reasonably request under that section in respect of—

(i) the administration of the school;
(ii) the fabric of the school;
(iii) the staff employed at the school;
(iv) the pupils in attendance at the school; and
(v) other children and young persons who would be expected to be pupils in attendance at the school within two years after the incorporation date and of whose existence the authority are aware.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 20

EFFECT OF PENDING PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS ON PROPOSALS FOR ALTERATION ETC. OF SCHOOLS

Amendment proposed: No. 89, in page 11, line 29, after 'proposal', insert 'shall be'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 193.

Division No. 250]
[6.46 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)


Allason, Rupert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Aspinwall, Jack
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Churchill, Mr


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Critchley, Julian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Curry, David






Davis, David (Boothferry)
McCrindle, Robert


Day, Stephen
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Devlin, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dicks, Terry
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dunn, Bob
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
Mans, Keith


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maples, John


Favell, Tony
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Sir Hal


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Roger


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gregory, Conal
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayward, Robert
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hill, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Irvine, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irving, Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Janman, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kilfedder, James
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knapman, Roger
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Speed, Keith


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Speller, Tony


Knox, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Squire, Robin


Lang, Ian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Latham, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lawrence, Ivan
Stern, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stevens, Lewis


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Stokes, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thorne, Neil
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Trippier, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Walters, Sir Dennis
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Ward, John



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flynn, Paul


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Alton, David
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galbraith, Sam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Galloway, George


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Battle, John
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Beckett, Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bell, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blair, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyes, Roland
Haynes, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Home Robertson, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hood, Jimmy


Buckley, George J.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Caborn, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cryer, Bob
Kennedy, Charles


Cummings, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H' l)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Doran, Frank
McAllion, John


Douglas, Dick
McAvoy, Thomas


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Ian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Eadie, Alexander
McFall, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKelvey, William


Fearn, Ronald
McLeish, Henry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maclennan, Robert


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
McNamara, Kevin


Fisher, Mark
McWilliam, John


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martlew, Eric
Short, Clare


Maxton, John
Sillars, Jim


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliott
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Gavin


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Parry, Robert
Wall, Pat


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Walley, Joan


Pike, Peter L.
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N.


Prescott, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wilson, Brian


Reid, Dr John
Winnick, David


Richardson, Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wray, Jimmy


Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 90, in page 11, line 30, leave out `shall be'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 6

PROVISION OF BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR PUPILS AT SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS ETC.

Amendment proposed: No. 133, in page 58, line 46, leave out 'and cleanliness'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 196.

Division No. 251]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aitken, Jonathan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Allason, Rupert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brazier, Julian


Beggs, Roy
Bright, Graham


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Benyon, W.
Buck, Sir Antony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Budgen, Nicholas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burns, Simon





Burt, Alistair
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Chris
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carttiss, Michael
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Kilfedder, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chope, Christopher
Knapman, Roger


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Colvin, Michael
Knox, David


Conway, Derek
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lang, Ian


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Latham, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Ivan


Cormack, Patrick
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Couchman, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cran, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lightbown, David


Curry, David
Lilley, Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Devlin, Tim
Lord, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
McCrindle, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dunn, Bob
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Durant, Tony
Maclean, David


Dykes, Hugh
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Favell, Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mans, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Maples, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marland, Paul


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Miller, Sir Hal


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hannam, John
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Christopher
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heddle, John
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James
Patnick, Irvine


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Janman, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm






Roe, Mrs Marion
Thornton, Malcolm


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walters, Sir Dennis


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Warren, Kenneth


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Yeo, Tim


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Thorne, Neil
Mr. Michael Fallon.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Doran, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas, Dick


Armstrong, Hilary
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Battle, John
Fearn, Ronald


Beckett, Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beith, A. J.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Flynn, Paul


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blair, Tony
Foster, Derek


Blunkett, David
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Buckley, George J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Darling, Alistair
Hoyle, Doug


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)





Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Johnston, Sir Russell
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Robertson, George


Kennedy, Charles
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Sillars, Jim


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McFall, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Vaz, Keith


Martlew, Eric
Wall, Pat


Maxton, John
Wallace, James


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Allen McKay.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 25

RECURRENT GRANT, CAPITAL GRANTS AND SPECIAL PURPOSE GRANT

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 14, line 26, after `shall', insert
`subject to section Recurrent grant in respect of provision for special educational needs of this Act,'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 28

CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICSS OF SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOL

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 17, line 27, leave out `they' and insert
`other than an increase in the range of provisions which the school has for pupils with special educational needs, the board'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 7

ARRANGEMENTS IN RESPECT OF BALLOT OF PARENTS REGARDING CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS OF SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOL

Amendment made: No. 134, in page 60, line 9, leave out `concerning the ballot' and insert,
including (without prejudice to the generality of this sub-paragraph) information—

(i) about the ballot and about the procedure for changing the characteristics of a self-governing school; and
(ii) in the case of a ballot held by virtue of section 15 of this Act, an explanation (which in the case of a ballot required by a notice under subsection (1) of that section shall repeat the reasons given in the notice by the Secretary of State for declaring the earlier ballot invalid or void) as to why a fresh ballot is to be held.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 29

DISCONTINUANCE BY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT

Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 19, line 5, leave out
`required by regulations made by the Secretary of State' and insert 'prescribed'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 196.

Division No. 252]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Allason, Rupert
Butter-fill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Aspinwall, Jack
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Curry, David


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Devlin Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dover, Den


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Tony


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Farr, Sir John


Bright, Graham
Favell, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forman, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Fox, Sir Marcus





Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Miller, Sir Hal


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mills, Iain


Green way, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hawkins, Christopher
Needham, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Norris, Steve


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Janman, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speller, Tony


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Latham, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lawrence, Ivan
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stevens, Lewis


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stokes, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McCrindle, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maclean, David
Thornton, Malcolm


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Mans, Keith
Trippier, David


Maples, John
Trotter, Neville


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian






Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas


Walters, Sir Dennis
Wolfson, Mark


Ward, John
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Whitney, Ray
and Mr. Sidney Chapman.


Widdecombe, Ann



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Allen, Graham
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Thomas


Armstrong, Hilary
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barron, Kevin
Grocott, Bruce


Battle, John
Hardy, Peter


Beckett, Margaret
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beith, A. J.
Haynes, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Henderson, Doug


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Home Robertson, John


Blair, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Blunkett, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boateng, Paul
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Boyes, Roland
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoyle, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Canavan, Dennis
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clay, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clelland, David
Kennedy, Charles


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lambie, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livsey, Richard


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Loyden, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Doran, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Douglas, Dick
McFall, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Eadie, Alexander
Maclennan, Robert


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McNamara, Kevin


Fearn, Ronald
McWilliam, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Madden, Max


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Derek
Maxton, John


Foulkes, George
Meale, Alan


Fraser, John
Michael, Alun


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galbraith, Sam
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Galloway, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morgan, Rhodri





Morley, Elliott
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Murphy, Paul
Snape, Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L.
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wall, Pat


Radice, Giles
Wallace, James


Randall, Stuart
Walley, Joan


Redmond, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wareing, Robert N.


Reid, Dr John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Robertson, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, Jimmy


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Clare
Mr. Allen McKay and


Sillars, Jim
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 94, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'him' and insert 'the Secretary of State'.——[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 31

WITHDRAWAL OF GRANT BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 20, line 20, after 'authority,' insert—
'(iia) the parents of the pupils in attendance at the school; '.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 32

TRANSFER OF LAND, MOVEABLE PROPERTY AND OBLIGATIONS TO BOARD OF MANAGEMENT

Amendment made: No. 95, in page 22, line 34, at end insert—
'(ba) any obligation or liability under a contract of employment relating to a person previously employed by the education authority to whom section 21 of this Act does not apply; or'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 8

TRANSFER AND APPORTIONMENT OF ASSETS

Amendments made: No. 135, in page 60, line 34, at end insert 'and'.

No. 136, in page 62, line 26, at end insert 'and'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 9

COMMISSIONERS FOR SCHOOL ASSETS

Amendments made: No. 137, in page 64, line 15, after 'functions', insert 'of a commissioner'.

No. 138, in page 64, line 19, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 5 and'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 35

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WHERE NO CERTIFICATE ISSUED

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 24, line 8, leave out `become a party to' and insert 'raise or defend'. — [Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 37

REDUCTION OF DISPOSALS OF PROPERTY BY EDUCATION AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 97, in page 25, line 5, leave out `may' and insert `shall'— [Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 41

COMMISSIONER FOR SCHOOL ASSETS' RIGHT OF ACTION FOR CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 38

Amendment made: No. 98, in page 27, line 15, after 'may', insert 'seek to'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 45

WINDING-UP ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 28, line 41, after 'may', insert
'after consultation with the education authority and subject to subsection (2A) below,'.

No. 100, in page 28, line 42, at end insert—
'(2A) Where subsection (2)(a) of the said section 31 applies to a notice given under that section the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section within 5 years of the date on which he gives the said notice.'.

No. 101, in page 28, line 43, after '(2)' insert
'Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above,'

No. 102, in page 29, line 8, leave out 'or held'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 46

DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY ON WINDING UP

Amendments made: No. 103, in page 29, line 38, leave out 'or held'.

No. 104, in page 30, line 2, leave out 'or held'.

No. 105, in page 30, line 4, leave out 'which formerly maintained the school'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 47

TRANSFER OF SCHOOL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW SCHOOL

Amendment made: No. 106, in page 31, line 12, leave out
'which was formerly responsible for the discontinued school'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 48

DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MONEY ON WINDING-UP

Amendment made: No. 107, in page 32, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert
`shall be paid or, as the case may be, transferred to the Secretary of State, after—


(i) discharge of their liabilities (other than any not required to be discharged before the dissolution date is appointed); and
(ii) payment of all expenses of the winding up.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 49

ESTABLISHMENT OF COLLEGE COUNCILS

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 33, line 10, leave out 'industrial.'

No. 8, in page 33, line 21, after first 'by', insert 'employers, or by'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 60

POWER OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES TO FORM COMPANIES TO MANAGE COLLEGES OF FURTHER EDUCATION

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 40, line 9, leave out 'An education authority' and insert 'A college council'.

No. 10, in page 40, line 9, after 'of,' insert—
'(a) the education authority; and
(b)'.

No. 11, in page 40, line 11, leave out 'transferring' and insert
'enabling the education authority to transfer.'

No. 12, in page 40, line 33, after 'amend", insert 'or revoke'.

No. 13, in page 40, line 38, at end insert—
'(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the carrying on through a college of further education managed by a company formed by virtue of subsection (1) above of any commercial activities which are detrimental to The provision of further education at that college.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 62

ABOLITION OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER PAY AND CONDITIONS OF TEACHING STAFF EMPLOYED IN PROVIDING FURTHER EDUCATION

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 41, line 40, after first 'or', insert—
', as the case may be, an'.

No. 15, in page 41, line 40, leave out
'subsection (8) or, as the case may be, (9) of'.

No. 16, in page 41, line 42, leave out 'it' and insert
'the order, settlement, determination or award'.

No. 17, in page 42, line 4, leave out 'or determination' and insert 'determination or award'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 65

APPRAISAL OF TEACHERS

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 44, leave out line 6 to 8 and insert—
'(3) Subject to regulations made under this section, an employer may at any time vary or replace a scheme made in accordance with those regulations and, if such regulations so require, he shall—

(a) before making, varying or replacing any such scheme, consult any body representing teaching staff who are to be affected by the scheme as proposed to be made, varied or replaced;
(b) before proceedings with appraisal under any such scheme as so made, varied or replaced, submit it to the Secretary of State'.

No. 19, in page 44, leave out lines 15 to 18.

No. 20, in page 44, line 27, leave out 'any' and insert `each'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 72

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 47, line 30, leave out 'and (2)'

No. 109, in page 47, line 34, after 'Act', insert
('any such board constituted in accordance with Schedule 4 to this Act being referred to as an "interim board of management")'.

—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Clause 73

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 110, in page 49, line 8, leave out '66,'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Schedule 10

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No253. 21, in page 65, leave out lines 4 to 16 and insert—

'1. In subsection (5) of section 5 of the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889 (which relates to the constitution of university courts), for the words "the principal" there shall be substituted the words "a vice-chairman elected by the Court from among all its members,".'.

No. 48, in page 69, line 8, at end insert—

`(7A) In section 49 (power of education authorities to assist persons to take advantage of educational facilities), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) In subsection (2) above, references to attending school are to so attending not only where the school is in Scotland, but also where it is in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland ('school education' being construed accordingly).".

(7B) In section 50 (education of pupils in exceptional circumstances)—
(a) in subsection (1), for the words "an appropriate school or college" there shall be substituted the words—
, in any case falling under—

(i) paragraph (a) of this subsection, an appropriate school; and
(ii) paragraph (b) thereof, the particular school.";

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) In subsection (1) above, references to an appropriate school and to a particular school are references not only to schools in Scotland but also to schools in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland ('school education' being construed accordingly)."; and
(c) in subsection (2)(a), for the words "section 51 of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1) of section 51 of this Act (for the purposes of this paragraph, any reference in that section to a school being construed as a reference not only to a school in Scotland but also to a school in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland).".'.

No. 22, in page 69, line 44, at end insert—
'(16A) In paragraph (a) of section 97C (interpretation of sections 91 to 97B—

(a) the words "(i)" and "(or)" and sub-paragraph (ii) shall cease to have effect;
(b) after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words "from time to time"; and
(c) after the word "determine;" there shall be inserted the words "and the provisions of those sections shall accordingly not apply in relation to such teachers or

other persons employed by education authorities in Scotland in, or in connection with, the provision of school education as are excluded from, the definition of "teaching staff' by such an order;".'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 11

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 71, line 39, after '(c);' insert 'and'.

No. 50, in page 71, line 41, leave out 'and the words "or college".'.

No. 23, in page 72, line 4, after 'both', insert 'other'.

No. 24, in page 72, line 18, at end insert
'In paragraph (a) of section 97C, the words "(i)" and "or", and sub-paragraph (ii);'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

New Clause 13

FURTHER PROVISION AS TO APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS

`After section 87 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—

Appointment of principal teachers

87A. Where an education authority intends to fill a post, other than on an acting basis, of a principal teacher in a school, they shall advertise the post in such publications circulating throughout Scotland as they consider appropriate.

Selection of teachers

87B. Without prejudice to section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (which provides for the appointment of staff of local authorities to be made on merit) and to any requirement in any other enactment as to the considerations to which they may or may not have regard in making appointments, an education authority who are considering an appointment of a teacher shall not exclude any person from consideration for such an appointment on the ground that—

(a) he is not employed by that education authority; or
(b) he is or is not employed by a particular employer or class of employer; or
(c) he is not currently employed as a teacher.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

REMUNERATION OF CERTAIN PERSONS EMPLOYED IN PROVIDING SCHOOL EDUCATION

'(1) This section applies to persons employed by education authorities in Scotland in, or in connection with, the provision of school education in relation to whose remuneration and terms and conditions of employment sections 91 to 97B of the 1980 Act have ceased, by virtue of an order made under section 97C(a) of that Act, to apply.
(2) Where, in relation to the remuneration or terms and conditions of employment of any persons to whom this section applies—

(a) an order made under section 92 of the 1980 Act (as originally enacted and not as substituted by the Education (Scotland) Act 1981); or
(b) a settlement formulated under section 91(1) of the 1980 Act; or
(c) a determination or, as the case may be, an award made under section 97B of the 1980 Act,

is still in force on the date on which such an order as is mentioned in subsection (1) above comes into force, the order, settlement, determination or award shall, subject to subsection (3) below, remain in force after that date.
(3) Where, after this enactment comes into force—



(a) any group of persons to whom this section applies and those employing them agree, whether expressly or impliedly, to an alteration of the remuneration payable to, or the terms and conditions of employment of, that group of persons; or
(b) any such alteration as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above is arrived at in an agreed manner,

that alteration shall, to the extent that it is concerned with the same matters, supersede any such order, settlement, determination or award as is referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) above.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES: EXTENSION OF POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE GRANTS

`In section 73(d) of the 1980 Act (power of Secretary of State to make grants to persons providing education or educational services other than education authorities, universities and managers of educational establishments)—

(a) the word "for" shall be inserted before the words "providing education or educational services" and shall with those words constitute sub-paragraph (i); and
(b) after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the word "or" and the following sub-paragraph—

(ii) in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of, or in connection with the provision (or proposed provision) of education or educational services.".'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second Time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

REQUIREMENT FOR PROVISION BY EDUCATION AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES

`(1) Without prejudice to section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (power of local authority and public body to enter into agreement for certain purposes) the board of management of a self-governing school may require the education authority to provide them with any administrative, professional, technical or other services which the authority provide to or in respect of schools under the authority's management.
(2) An education authority may make such charge as is reasonable for any services which they are required under subsection (1) above to provide; and they shall in determining what charge to make have regard both to the cost of providing the services and to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in respect of any such charge.
(3) In the event of any dispute arising between the education authority and the board of management as regards the reasonableness of any such charge, the matter may be referred by either party to the Secretary of State, whose decision in that regard shall be final.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

FUNCTIONS OF SCHOOL BOARD: APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF 1988 ACT

'.—(1) In so far as the context admits, functions under this Act of a school board are, for the purposes of—

(a) section 5 of the 1988 Act (advice to boards) matters within the competence of the board;

(b) sections 8(1) (exercise of functions of boards) and 19 (allowances for members) of that Act functions of the board;
(c) section 13 (parents' meetings) of that Act activities of the board.

(2) Subsection (1)(b) of section 17 of the 1988 Act (financing of boards) shall apply in relation to functions of a school board under this Act as it applies to such functions under that Act; and subsection (3) of that section shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Ballot expenses

'.Subject to section 14(2) of this Act, an education authority who have received written notice under subsection (6) of section 13 of this Act from a school board shall neither pay any sum nor incur any expense, for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the ballot provided for by subsection (1) of the said section 16, in excess of such maximum amount as may be prescribed; and the school board may, for the purposes of the ballot, require the Secretary of State to make payment to them under this section of sums whose total does not exceed that amount in respect of such expenses as they may incur in promoting the acquisition of self-governing status by the school.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

RECURRENT GRANT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

'.—(1) For each financial year, recurrent grant payable in respect of any self-governing school—

(a) which is a special school; or
(b) (in the case of a school which is not a special school) in so far as is attributable to expenditure for the purpose of making provision for pupils in attendance at the school who are persons whose needs are recorded by the education authority in implementation of the authority's duty under section 60(2)(b) of the 1980 Act (duty to keep record of needs).

shall be determined having regard to the following provisions of this section.

(2) The education authority and the board of management shall attempt to reach agreement as to—

(a) in the case of a special school, what educational and other provision is to be made in the financial year for the pupils in attendance at the school, the estimated cost of that provision and the estimated expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of the board's other functions under section 7(1) of this Act in that year;
(b) in any other case, what provision is to be made in that year for such pupils as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above and the estimated cost of that provision.

and any such agreement, or a failure to reach such agreement, shall be timeously intimated by the board of management to the Secretary of State.

(3) If intimation under subsection (2) above is of a failure to reach agreement or if the Secretary of State does not accept any aspect of an intimated agreement, he shall himself determine the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) or as the case may be (b), of subsection (2) above in determining under section 25(2) of this Act the amount of recurrent grant payable in respect of the school; and his determination as to the said matters shall (without prejudice to the provision made by subsection (2) of section 25 of this Act as to revision) be final.
(4) In determining under section 25(2) of this Act the amount of recurrent grant payable in respect of a school, the Secretary of State shall, where he does not make a determination under subsection (3) above, regard an agreement intimated under subsection (2) above as determining the matters to which it relates.


(5) Grant regulations may prescribe—

(a) what information is to be—

(i) exchanged between an education authority and a board of management for the purposes of their duty under subsection (2) above or for the purposes of subsection (6) below;
(ii) provided to the Secretary of State by the authority and the board for the purposes of his considering any agreement intimated to him under that subsection or subsection (7) below or himself making a determination under subsection (3) above or a variation under subsection (8) below;

(b) the dates by which, in respect of any financial year, such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above is to be provided;
(c) the latest date by which, in respect of any financial year, any agreement, or failure to reach agreement, is to be intimated to the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above.

(6) In a case where an amount of recurrent grant payable has been determined in accordance with subsection (4) above, during the course of the financial year the education authority and the board of management—

(a) may agree; and
(b) if the Secretary of State so requires, shall attempt to reach agreement as to, a variation of their agreement under subsection (2) above.

(7) The board of management shall intimate to the Secretary of State any variation agreed, or any failure to reach an agreement, under subsection (6) above; and the Secretary of State shall, if he accepts any agreement reached, vary the amount of recurrent grant payable accordingly.
(8) Where the Secretary of State does not accept an agreed variation intimated under subsection (7) above, or where he has imposed a requirement under subsection (6) above but the education authority and the board of management are unable to agree on a variation of their agreement under subsection (2) above, he may himself vary the amount of recurrent grant payable but he shall not otherwise vary that amount in a case such as is mentioned in subsection (6) above.'. —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

DISPOSAL OF LAND BY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT

`. —(1) This section applies where a board of management seek the consent of the Secretary of State to the disposal of land which was—

(a) transferred to the board under section 32 of this Act; or
(b) acquired by the board, wholly or partly, with the proceeds of the sale of land which was transferred as mentioned in paragraph (a) above; or
(c) acquired by the board, wholly or partly, with the proceeds of the sale of land which was acquired, wholly or partly—

(i) as mentioned in paragraph (b) above; or
(ii) with the proceeds of any subsequent sale of any such land.

(2) Where the consent of the Secretary of State is sought as mentioned in subsection (1) above, he may—

(a) require the board of management to transfer the land, or any part of it, to the education authority upon payment by the authority to the board of such consideration, if any, as he considers appropriate; or
(b) except in a case where the land is being transferred to the education authority, require the board of management to pay to the authority all, or any part of, the consideration which they receive in respect of the disposal of the land.

(3) Where any land such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above is compulsorily acquired from a board of management, they shall—

(a) not require to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to such disposal; but
(b) inform him that the land is being compulsorily acquired from them; and

(c) pay to the education authority the whole or such part of the compensation which they receive in respect of the compulsory acquisition as the Secretary of State may direct.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

GENERAL ACADEMIC SELECTION

`A self-governing school shall not introduce general academic selection whereby the admission of pupils to the school or rejection of pupils by the school is made by reference to levels of ability or aptitude.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Many concerns were voiced in Committee about the Bill, but none more so than the concern about academic selection. Clauses 16 and 28 seem to include provision for a self-governing school to admit pupils on the basis of academic selection.
In Committee, the Government would not accept that definition of the words "aptitude and ability". But the Opposition clearly felt that aptitude and ability were an euphemism for admission on the basis of academic selection.
Over the past 20 years in Scotland there has been a consensus on the need to build and develop comprehensive education. That has been one of the big success stories of Scottish education over the past 10 to 15 years. The Opposition are alarmed that, under the guise of self-governing status, any school could use academic criteria to admit pupils. As the Committee progressed, the Opposition became less assured of the Government's intent. The Government were keen to suggest that aptitude and ability meant that there could be special provision for the arts and for sports, but the Opposition clearly felt that there was a real threat of academic selection.
7.30 pm
There have been few studies on the impact of comprehensivisation on attainment in Scottish education. One is the work done by the Centre for Educational Sociology in Edinburgh. As usual, the Minister sighs with despair at the mention of that organisation, but it is a reputable, reliable and authoritative source on the benefits of comprehensivisation over the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) reminds me, the Scottish Office invests considerable sums of money in tapping its expertise.
Comprehensivisation in Scotland has meant an improvement in overall standards and, equally important. an equalisation of attainment between children of different social backgrounds. That was one of the motivating forces behind the introduction of comprehensive education, not only in England and Wales, but in Scotland.
The Centre for Educational Sociology has produced some interesting statistics on the impact of that change on the two areas of overall improvement and equalisation. In Committee there were few opportunities when the Government could resist the temptation to rubbish the work of the Centre for Educational Sociology, but they failed to provide any evidence to counter the representations that we were making, backed up by the welter of statistics on every educational indicator that we could find.
Clearly, comprehensivisation has been a success in Scotland, and the opposition are worried that that could be threatened by the back-door introduction of selection on the basis of academic criteria.
Scotland has dwelt on the twin aspects of child development—equal worth and equal access. We know that that is anathema to many on the Right wing of the Conservative party who do not believe that a modern progressive education system should have such qualities. Conservative Members like to talk about competition and individual choice, but one of the overriding qualities that comprehensivisation has brought to Scottish education is that children have been treated equally, with access that is not determined at an early age by testing; nor is it dependent, for 98 per cent. of our Scottish schoolchildren, on the ability to pay.
Those are laudable objectives, which the Opposition believe should be nurtured and further developed. But if a self-governing school seeks to introduce academic criteria for admission, not only will the educational clock be put back some 20 years, but it will be educationally divisive. The introduction of admission based on academic criteria would lead to a diminution of choice for the vast majority of Scottish schoolchildren. The wider danger, knowing the Government's track record, is that, at an early date, that very concept could, through legislation, be introduced in education authority schools.
We are talking about more than merely academic selection being used in self-governing schools, but that is the thin edge of the educational wedge in satisfying the lust on the Government Benches in this new Right view of education where everything has to be competitive and children have to be failed at an early stage so that competition comes higher on the education agenda.
That is not the path which other European countries are following. It is widely recognised in education and in training that the countries that are competitive and whose performance greatly outstrips us have a system of education in which all children can develop and take advantage of the education system until the age of 16 or after when they can specialise in training, vocational education and further education. That requires a non-selective system of education at the crucial time in a child's development within a community. That is why the Opposition have sought to make this a key priority in the debate. We have sought to ensure that something that is not wanted in Scotland is adequately dealt with in the House tonight.
It is curious that we have a Bill which, by any stretch of the imagination, is uniquely objectionable to most Scots, and within which are even more objectionable aspects such as academic selection. At one time, when a Government brought legislation before the House, they would have evidence to justify or substantiate what they were seeking to do. The Government have nothing to justify the reintroduction of a method of selecting children for schools, which, as I have said, was smashed by the consensus which has emerged over the past 20 years.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Where does the Bill introduce academic selection, or selection of any kind? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bill introduces two specific hurdles—the consent of the parents and the consent of the Secretary of State—to make such a change? Will he also confirm that education authority schools will be able to introduce academic selection on the basis of a simple vote

by the education committee? There are specific protections and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House in the way that he has.

Mr. McLeish: With the greatest respect to the Minister, it is he who is misleading the House. In Committee, he made great play of the fact that Scottish education authorities could at any time reintroduce academic selection. The real test is that they have no inclination to do so, and that applied when the Conservatives controlled some education authorities in Scotland—an event unlikely to be repeated in the near future. However, it is not true to say that that is a power that local authorities have and would wish to use.
The Minister also asks where in the Bill there is a suggestion of academic selection. It is in clause 16, and there is a reference to aptitude and ability. We cannot accept for a minute that, after two obstacles have been overcome, we should trust the Secretary of State not to decide that a school can change its characteristics and allow academic selection.

Mr. Bill Walker: When the hon. Gentleman gets round to reading the statement that he has just made, he may see the conflicting arguments that he has used to present his case. He accepts that it is on the statute book that local authorities can, if they wish, introduce selection, but they have not done so because they did not wish to do so. The Bill simply gives parents and school boards a similar opportunity.

Mr. McLeish: I have some respect for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but if he believes that the Bill is permissive and will merely lie on the shelf in schools throughout the country and not be used, he is being extremely naive. The Government introduced assisted places and school boards on the pretext that they would offer parental choice. In truth, they provided the base on which to build self-governing schools. The Bill also reintroduces standardised testing. It all fits together, to allow a school to pit child against child at a very early age. It is very naive of the hon. Member for Tayside, North to assume that the Bill simply provides further parental choice. That is not its purpose. If the hon. Gentleman read some of the Right-wing nonsense in which some of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and Back Benches indulge, he would be more wary of the Minister's overtures about the Bill being only permissive legislation.
Why do the Government wish to see even self-governing schools return to a system that has been massively rejected by the Scottish people and by every other political party in Scotland, and which is repugnant to the majority of parents and educationalists? Even given the Government's comments about aptitude and ability, they must justify such an objectionable measure. In Committee, the Minister wriggled away from giving more precise definitions. I ask him to state tonight whether he believes that selection on the basis of academic ability should be reintroduced in the Scottish education system. I ask him whether he will allow that, as between the primary and comprehensive sector, and cause enormous damage to children?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: At the risk of irritating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in Committee I made it clear that I am in favour of schools being selective in their intake. One example is pupils


wishing to join a school of dance, such as the Knightswood comprehensive school. In the case of the Douglas academy, selection would apply to children talented in music. In Committee, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) failed to say whether he was against such selection, and whether it was included in the term "general academic selection" in new clause 2.

Mr. McLeish: There was nothing very original in that response. The Minister gave the wrong reply to the right question. Setting aside social skills, culture and sport, does the Minister want to see in existence soon the situation in which a self-governing school, after a change in its characteristics, will admit children only on the basis of tests relating to their academic ability at primary school level? Does the Minister support that concept, or will he give an assurance that such a system will not operate?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Bill allows a self-governing school to make a proposal which, if it receives the endorsement of parents, can go before the Secretary of State for him to take a view. The hon. Gentleman describes music as a social subject whereas it is really an academic subject requiring great skill. Is the hon. Gentleman against schools having specialist departments for music? Is he against specialist departments of classics because of the need for a broad intake to run a successful classics department? Will the hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friend the Member of Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) duck the issue of whether there should be selective intake for those whose native language is Gaelic? My view is that such matters are best left to the judgment of parents and to the good sense of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman wants self-governing schools to be more restricted than education authority schools. He should be honest enough to answer the questions that have been asked of him.

Mr. McLeish: Our worry is that, if the Minister were to be sitting in the Scottish Office considering requests from parents, and given that he is ideologically committed to academic selection, he would agree to a school changing its characteristics under the banner of aptitude and ability. The Minister again wriggles away from answering the real question. In Committee, other definitions of ability and aptitude were accepted. Tonight, I ask the Minister whether he wants to see a return to the situation that existed in Scottish schools 15 or 20 years ago, whereby the result of a test set to children in primary schools determined their whole futures. Is that what the Minister wants to achieve in Scottish education?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the answer to that question is no. In previous debates, we repeatedly gave assurances that the tests being introduced in primary schools will not be used for the purposes of selection and to rank children, but for giving parents information about their children's academic performance. They will not go as far as the tests run by education authorities such as that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. His new clause is not about that aspect but about preventing schools from doing what the Douglas academy and Knightswood in the comprehensive sector have done, which is to be selective about particular specialist intakes in meeting a particular specialist need. I

am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's own narrow-minded, ideological bigotry would prevent parents from having the option to vote for or against any change, when he is perfectly content for any education authority to effect changes without consulting parents, other than in the most cursory way.

Mr. McLeish: I know that a number of my hon. Friends are keen to participate in the debate, and we are now going over ground that was covered in Committee. However, on a poll of Scottish parents, I know whom they would trust more, given a choice between the Secretary of State and the Minister, and the chairman and responsible members of an education authority.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman include and embrace in his new clause physical education and all that it implies? If he does, the hon. Gentleman, with his experience of and background in professional soccer, and one thing or another, must surely agree that parents may want their children to enter a particular school because its staff have a reputation for being particularly experienced in that area of activity.

Mr. McLeish: I did not mind the hon. Gentleman's reference to my background in soccer, but his reference to "one thing or another" perplexed me. He follows the line of the Minister. Academic selection relates to admission on the basis of academic ability, which in turn suggests mental rather than physical aptitudes. The Minister nods his head in surprise, but that aspect was covered in Committee, and tonight we have tried to get the Minister to come clean and talk about general academic selection as it is generally interpreted. He has failed to do so. Instead we heard throwaway lines relating to music, dancing and other cultural subjects. My right hon. and hon. Friends will infer from that that the Minister is moving to admission on the basis of academic selection.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asked me to give additional examples, but why did his list ignore the examples of the classics and of Gaelic that I gave? He rode over music as though it were a social skill. Is the hon. Gentleman against schools providing specialist teaching in specialist subjects and being selective about intake? If so, he is against the apparent current practice in comprehensive schools in Strathclyde.

Mr. McLeish: The Minister should read new clause 2, which refers to admission criteria on the basis of academic ability. The Minister clearly wishes to ignore our interpretation of that, but most Scots know what is meant by selection between primary and secondary schools. The Minister glibly ignores the reality. Beneath the guise of aptitude and ability, the criteria and characteristics of self-governing schools—established under clause 16—could change over a period, under clause 28. That could include admission on the basis of academic selection.

Mr. Bill Walker: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my constituency contains a number of schools. What will he tell primary schools that teach Gaelic? What will he tell parents who wish their children to attend a secondary school that, under the present comprehensive system, offers Gaelic as a subject, if it becomes self-governing because that is wanted locally? Will he say that the school can no longer be selective?

Mr. McLeish: I think that that point was covered earlier. Whether or not the Government understand the issue, the people of Scotland will understand it. Most of them fought for a long time to remove academic criteria from the face of Scottish education. Now, in the late 1980s, we see the possibility of a Government's wishing to return to that reactionary and regressive attitude to Scottish education.
We are opposed to such criteria for admission, for the simple reason that we believe that comprehensivisation has shown that we want to invest in every child, with no artificial cut-off point in relation to maturity or ability at any specific age. We do not want to return to a system of investing in failure by rejecting children of 11—or, under this bizarre testing procedure, possibly even younger—when they could move into comprehensive education at the age of 12, 13, 14 or 15, maturing at different stages and combining either academic ability or vocational training with their talents. That is the light that we have tried to cast on the gloom that will surround the future of comprehensive and self-governing schools if the Bill is passed.
We talked earlier about what we wished to do in the future, and I do not want to go into that now. Let me simply say that we see an odious practice seeping through the Bill. We hope that, if it is implemented, self-governing schools in particular will once again, at the earliest opportunity, see equal worth and equal access as an important priority. We ask the House to accept new clause 2, which we think will be widely welcomed in Scotland.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Let me briefly repeat some of the concerns that I had in Committee. I understand what lies behind new clause 2, although I suspect that some of the fears that prompted it are not as strong as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) makes out.
I am, however, anxious that if any genuine element of selectivity were introduced it could have a dramatic effect on schools in rural areas. As I said in Committee, parents subjected to it might have had no say in the opting out of the secondary school to which their children's primary school was feeding pupils. That in itself is bad enough, but if the parents had no choice because children were being fed to a specific centre, the denial of access to the secondary school that was in the natural position for their area would create horrendous practical and physical problems of, for instance, travel. I freely admit that the problem might not arise in urban areas, as there would be other suitable secondary schools nearby.
My hon. Friend the Minister gave me a strong assurance in Committee that in such circumstances the Secretary of State would on no account allow the introduction of selection on an academic basis. I very much hope that he will repeat that assurance tonight, as it has coloured my attitude to the new clause. I do not support the Bill in any case, but I want to be certain that when it becomes law it will not deny access to the geographically natural secondary school in a rural area because of action taken after the school has become self-governing.

Sir Russell Johnston: I strongly agree with what the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said. Nevertheless, he cannot say on the one hand, "I am not terribly worried about selectivity; I think that the Opposition are exaggerating," and on the

other hand, "Oh dear me, it might happen, and if it happens in a rural context it would be dreadful." The two are not compatible. I share his anxieties for practically the same reasons, however, and consider it entirely right for him to ask for certain assurances.
I strongly support new clause 2, and compliment whoever devised it on the straightforward language in which it is couched: I know that such pellucid simplicity is anathema to the arcane minds of the Minister's advisers, who do not appear to be around at present. The Minister, too, has departed, but no doubt he will be advised by his friendly colleagues. In Committee, he provided a regrettable demonstration that he is the grammatical slave of the obscure and recondite mandarins who write our legislation, and I hope that he will not descend into such arguments this evening.
Let me be more serious. I believe that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was entirely right in saying that the most important single worry of those of us who oppose the legislation is that it could provide a way of introducing selectivity covertly at an early stage. I thought that the 11-plus argument was long buried, but I fear that it is not.
A long exchange between the hon. Member for Fife, Central and the Minister did not leave me much the wiser, but as I understand the new clause—perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central will confirm this—it is designed to prevent general exclusion on academic grounds, but not particular exclusion. For example, if a school wished to concentrate on the various subjects cited by the Minister—dance, classics or Gaelic—I do not think that anything in the new clause could prevent it from doing so.
The new clause is designed to protect the slow developer. I am sorry to sound like an echo of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I speak as a slow developer myself. I have in my possession a report card. It says that I was 26th in the class in one year and that three years later I was in first position. Some people do not develop as quickly as others, but they are capable of making progress and even becoming Members of Parliament. We want to ensure that this is not a covert way of preventing that happening.
The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is still very worried and his worries have led him to make the speech that he has just made. He is worried about the Bill being used to prevent people from developing at their own pace,. The new clause will not be used to prevent children from developing at their own pace, so I see no objection to its being accepted. It would not prevent schools from concentrating on the matters to which the Minister referred. That is perfectly proper, understandable and desirable.

8 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: It is interesting to hear that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was No. 26 in one year and No. 1 the following year.

Sir Russell Johnston: No, not in the following year.

Mr. Walker: I am wondering whether he was with the same group of 26 students or whether the composition of the group had changed—that from being bottom of the class in one group he moved to another group where he was top of the class.
My concern about the new clause is the inclusion of the word "aptitude." I should have thought that the word "ability" was sufficient. Aptitude is latent and can be developed. For that reason I intervened on a number of occasions during the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Degrees are now offered in a variety of disciplines, including what I believe to be variations on physical education. Certain schools employ teachers who are particularly good at coaching young people in football, rugby, sailing, skiing, hockey, netball, running and jumping.
The aptitude of a child can be spotted at a fairly early age. If he is provided with the right coaching, he may reach the stage where he can take up a career in which he can use his particular skills. He might be prepared to take a degree of a kind that did not exist 10 or 20 years ago. I do not complain about that. It is right that degrees in other than academic or theoretical subjects are now awarded. Young people are now able to use their great talents and skills to their own advantage and to the advantage of the nation, provided that their aptitude is developed at a sufficiently early age. It would be nice if Scottish people could be seen to be competing with and beating the best simply because they had attended a school where music, dance or drama had been part of the curriculum, due to a member of the staff having the skill to train young people with those aptitudes. The new clause could be used to prevent that from happening.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that specialist schools such as he has described could function in sparsely populated rural areas? I can see that happening in urban areas where young people would not have to travel long distances, but it could not happen in sparsely populated areas where general provision has to be made.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman, who has a background in education, ought to know that there have been remarkable developments in some of our rural area schools. Specialist skills are being exercised and used in my area. Local authority schools are encouraging youngsters, even though they live outside the normal catchment area, to travel to them, because they are able to offer specialist training. If a school is fortunate enough to have on its staff individuals, or an individual, with the special talent of being able to develop young people's ability in music, drama, or physical education, it is not surprising that parents encourage their children to travel to that school. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as in mine, many children have to travel long distances. Some of them have to live in hostels.
We spend a great deal of time talking about the problems of the inner cities, but we fail to understand the problems, challenges and opportunities that exist in rural schools. The schools in, say, Killiecrankie and the Bridge of Cally, where there is only one teacher, are good schools. Youngsters who are taught in one-teacher schools often excel because they receive tuition of a kind that is not available to youngsters in city schools. Even more important is the fact that they live in communities where learning and education are seen to be a way of improving one's lot and of getting out into the big world and doing things with one's life.
The teaching of Gaelic is growing. A number of schools specialise in the teaching of Gaelic and encourage young people to learn the language, but there is nothing mandatory about it; they learn it by choice. The new clause relates to self-governing schools. It does not relate to local authority schools. Why should schools and parents in my constituency, which covers 2,000 square miles of rural Scotland, be deprived of opportunities simply because at one time the parents and the school board decided that the school should become self-governing? Why should they be any different from secondary schools with vast catchment areas that have remained within local authority control? Why should a school not be able to accept and select pupils because it has become a self-governing school? That is my worry about new clause 2. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assessment of it. I believe that it would hit rural schools such as those in my constituency.
I shall use one group of schools as an example as they provide the best illustration. The schools at Blair Atholl and Killiecrankie feed into Pitlochry school and Breadalbane academy, as do many other schools. I have selected those two deliberately because of certain geographical matters. Pitlochry school only goes up to the fourth year so any children wishing to remain in school have to transfer to or begin their secondary education at Breadalbane academy. Breadalbane academy accommodates pupils in the school dormitories, but anyone who has looked at a map of Perthshire will know that it is not the easiest of journeys from Blair Atholl to Breadalbane. One has to go down the A9 and across country to Aberfeldy. The journey from Killiecrankie is just as difficult. Pupils from a number of other schools face fairly tortuous routes.
If Breadalbane academy decides to become a self-governing school, the parents and the school board decide to put forward that proposal and it receives the sanction of the Secretary of State, and if Breadalbane wants to continue to accept pupils to study Gaelic, although they are not from the catchment area, under new clause 2 it may not be able to do so, because it will have become a self-governing school.

Sir Russell Johnston: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber shakes his head, but I believe that new clause 2 could have an impact on rural areas. I was impressed by what my hon. Friend the Minister said in earlier debates on the Bill. He drew attention to the fact that those of us representing rural areas would obviously be anxious that children living in the accepted catchment area for a secondary school in a rural area should not be excluded because that school has made a certain choice. My hon. Friend gave a clear assurance, which I am sure he will repeat tonight if necessary, that people will not be left with a lack of choice because of the geographical location of the secondary school. That would be unacceptable to all hon. Members who represent rural constituencies, but my hon. Friend has given his word and has reassured me.
That is not what bothers me about new clause 2. I do not believe that new clause 2 would remove that possibility, but I believe that if it were accepted, it would prevent such a school from accepting from outside its normal catchment area pupils who had aptitudes in the disciplines that I mentioned earlier.

Sir Russell Johnston: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. If one removed from the new clause the phrase:
admission of pupils to the school
the clause would state:
A self-governing school shall not introduce general academic selection whereby the … rejection of pupils by the school is made by reference to levels of ability or aptitude.
I am not particularly interested in preventing pupils from entering a school; I do not want to exclude people because of general matters or to create a situation in which schools are not allowed to accept pupils because of their aptitude.

Mr. Walker: The new clause states:
whereby the admission of pupils to the school or rejection of pupils by the school"—
there are two sides to the coin; I am dealing with the side that worries me—
is made by reference to levels of ability of aptitude.
I thought that I said at the beginning of my remarks that if the clause is concerned only with academic ability the word "aptitude" is unnecessary. I may be wrong, but it is my judgment that the word "aptitude" embraces anything for which a child has an aptitude. That is why I drew attention to the special disciplines that have been developed in further education and the new degrees that are being offered.

Mr. McAllion: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr McAllion) shakes his head.

Mr. McAllion: I am shaking my head because I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is so silly as not to understand the wording of the new clause. If the new clause read, "A self-governing school shall not admit pupils to the school by reference to levels of ability or aptitude," I would understand his argument. But the new clause states that a school
shall not introduce general academic selection".
That is all the new clause prohibits, so we have wasted about 15 minutes listening to a lot of nonsense about nothing.

Mr. Walker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber and look up the words "general", "academic" and "selection" in the Oxford English Dictionary. When he has done so he should come back here and tell me whether I am talking nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should remember that, if the new clause were accepted, it would be on the statute book and it would be judged in terms of law considering what each of those words means separately and collectively. The hon. Gentleman may believe something quite different, but that is what would happen if the new clause became a matter of dispute. We have to consider that when we debate new clause 2.
I understood the argument of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). I doubt whether the way in which the new clause is phrased will produce what he intended. I understood that he objected to any overall assessment such as the 11-plus. He is afraid that youngsters will be selected at a certain age. I believe that the present wording of his new clause will not achieve that. In my view, the important word is "aptitude". I recommend that the hon. Member for Dundee, East should also look up the word "aptitude".

Mr. Sam Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining about the wording of the new clause. What does he think about the principle of the new clause?

Mr. Walker: I am not in favour of going back to the 11-plus or anything remotely like it, but that does not mean that I am not in favour of individuals with special talents being given the opportunity to attend schools that have facilities for developing those talents. I believe that that would be a sensible use of education. It is happening now in the comprehensive system and I make no complaint about that. It is wise and sensible. Not every school can offer specialist teachers with skills to develop youngsters in particular disciplines. Not every school, and certainly not every rural secondary school, can do so, but some schools today offer specialist skills. Youngsters in my constituency travel fairly long distances to schools that offer specialist disciplines and skills.
That is happening under the existing system of comprehensive education, and it has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say. I understand their concern, but the new clause does not achieve what they want to achieve. If it is accepted, it could frustrate schools that are presently able to offer specialist skills under the comprehensive regime. They would be frustrated by the new clause if they were to become self governing. I would have hardly thought that any hon. Member would wish children from within or outwith a catchment area to be excluded because they have an aptitude.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central said that, under the present system, schools can be made selective if the local education authority so wishes—that provision is on the statute book—but they do not do so because the local education authority does not wish it and, thus far, the schools have made no such bids.
All that the Bill does is give self-governing schools the same opportunity as exists for local education authorities. Local education authorities are the final arbiters of these matters. If a local authority decides to make a school selective, the decision must be referred to the Secretary of State. A self-governing school cannot come into being unless the Secretary of State approves. That also is a fundamental change. Both fundamental changes are optional; they are not mandatory. There is no requirement for the education authority, the school board or the parents to decide that a school should become self-governing. No one will force them to do that. However, they have an option and a back-up, with the Secretary of State making the final decision. The case put by the hon. Member for Fife, Central is weakest on that point. Education authorities have had those powers, but they have chosen not to use them. If he is right and there is no demand, there will be no self-governing schools because the option will not be exercised.

Mr. McLeish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain education authorities have the power to introduce selection on the basis of academic ability? However, over some years, that practice has fallen into disuse and it is unlikely that it will ever be used again. In relation to self-governing schools, there need have been no reference to student ability. Selection has rightly been removed from


Scottish education, and the possibility of its returning is advanced by clause 16 and the reference to entry on the basis of ability or aptitude.

Mr. Walker: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, which he has repeated throughout the passage of the Bill, that there is no demand for self-governing schools in Scotland, that there will be no self-governing schools arid that, with the passage of time, they will fall into the same category of selection; local education authorities have not exercised their choice, and selection has fallen into disuse. If I am right, there will be some, but not many, self-governing schools, and my local education authority will respond with an understanding of the needs of rural schools.
I have made my case in support of the Bill, and my objection to the new clause is based on what I regard as the likely impact on rural schools in my constituency. Those schools will receive from the local education authority much more sympathetic understanding and treatment of the kind that the parents want for their children. The Bill has already brought about changes in Strathclyde. When it becomes an Act, the Tayside region will be much more responsive and receptive and less oriented to Dundee's many needs. There will be more understanding of the quality of teaching staff in rural areas.
The quality of life is one reason why teachers opt to live in rural areas. We often get good teachers in rural areas—it is true also of doctors and lawyers—and that is why we have high-calibre schools. However, they sometimes feel that the education authority does not fully understand their motivation and why people live in rural areas. The quality of life is probably the most important aspect in their decision to do so.
It is important that, when we examine the Bill and consider what will happen, we should not be dominated by the needs and problems of Scotland's great cities. The Bill, like all the others that pass through this place, will affect rural areas. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, those areas must feel that their needs are being satisfied.
I understand why the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is not present. She has made it clear how she feels about rural schools. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister would be wrong to accept the new clause. Its effect would not be the kind of effect that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for the Democrats —[Interruption.] I always think of the hon. Gentleman as being what a Liberal Member of Parliament should be. It is rather sad that not all his colleagues emulate him. His comments are always courteous and generous. He would be an ideal Liberal Member. I do not doubt his concern for rural schools in his constituency, but we have different assessments of what new clause 2 will do. However, our fears are not dissimilar. That is why it is good that we have had this opportunity to put our views on record. For the reasons that I have given, I hope that the Minister will reject the new clause.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I hope that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will forgive me if I do not agree with everything that he said. I will deal with the problems of children with learning difficulties and children with special needs. I support the new clause. As it stands, the Bill does a great disservice to those children. I

have read the Committee debates in some detail, and I have been greatly impressed, as I was this evening, by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish).
The Government have failed to justify changes that they are attempting to introduce into the Scottish system. Comprehensive education is being turned aside, which means that the kind of elitism that the Scottish people have long since rejected is again being imposed on our educational system. That is bad for the majority of Scottish children, but it is particularly bad for children with special needs whose difficulties and circumstances the House will wish to take into account.
8.30 pm
I do not believe, and have never believed, that Scottish education for the majority of children has been the jewel in the crown of educational provision. Historically, prior to the introduction of comprehensive education, for a small minority it might have been said that we had a splendid system leading, for that small minority, to excellent achievement. But that was the realisation of Jean Brodie's creme de la creme and not of service to the majority of Scottish children.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the 200 years before the turn of this century, when Scotland's schools were run substantially by school boards, Scottish education was the envy of the rest of Europe?

Mr. Clarke: No, I fear that, in line with my opening remarks, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that for the majority of Scottish children our education system has been the envy of anywhere. Certainly it has not been the envy of those of us who want to see all our children realising their full potential.
I fear that, just as we are seeing an educational system in Scotland contrived so that we are not even having an increase in access to higher education for children from working-class backgrounds, so, once again, we are finding resources thinly spread, and indeed not being spread towards all our children, particularly those in special need.
Access extends to many spheres. My hon. Friends will support my desire to promote the interests of children with special needs, especially as this is Scottish mental handicap week, when voluntary organisations in Scotland such as Barnardo's and the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped are arguing, in their posters and at exhibitions, that those children should be seen as part of our community and have access to good educational opportunities, good housing and a quality of life that has been denied to many of them.
Conservative Members argue about what can be achieved by selection, and it cannot be denied that we are having selection. They speak of children with special aptitudes—for example, children with a special desire to develop their musical talents and so on—and we agree that that is excellent and that provision should be made so that their aptitudes can be reflected in results.
But that type of provision should be widely shared. I have never understood why children who are good musicians should be sent away to special schools, whereas children who may not be so gifted are never able to hear them. Are they not entitled to access to good music, even to hear it, and should that not apply also to children with special needs? Sharing talents should not be in the


background of educational provision, but if we have the type of elitism over selection of which we are talking, that is where we will be heading. That seems a particularly selfish approach.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State, who I regret is temporarily not in his place, said:
I can state categorically and without equivocation that the Bill is not designed to reintroduce selectivity; nor is it designed to do anything other than to add to the opportunities available to Scottish youngsters and their parents in the educational system."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 625.]
If that is the intention, it is heavily disguised in the drafting of the Bill, and the proposed new clause would do much to redress the balance—perhaps I should say the imbalance—of provision that the measure will introduce.
With the kind of opting-out provisions that the Minister is recommending, it seems that those who will benefit least are children with special needs. Or are we to introduce elitism in that sphere, too? There was a time when it seemed that hon. Members on both sides of the House were aiming, not overnight but in due course, at integration for all our children. There was a time when I understood that it was felt that the education system and its comprehensive provisions might be made available to all.
I think I see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary looking askance as I make that statement. He knows that I welcome the fact that he has been to the Peto institute and that elsewhere in the Bill he is making provision for local authorities to make use of that service. Although my support for what he has done in that respect is unqualified, I must tell him bluntly that, if he believes in educational provision, he must ask himself why such a service is not being made available today in Scotland. If he goes ahead with opting out, he must ask why the children of whom I speak are being left behind. If all of this should be based on market considerations, he must be wondering whether the Peto institute should exist. Has not the Minister been trying to impose restrictions in Scottish education through his approach?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself. If he is arguing that integration and a move away from special schools should be the way forward, the opportunity for the development of particular techniques and approaches, of which the Peto institute is one, would be diminished. The whole point about allowing for self-governing status in the special needs area is precisely to allow the development of a diversity of approach which the hon. Gentleman and I would probably favour.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister will find when he reads my speech that I have been consistent. I am arguing that in the kind of society in which we believe, the time will come when it will not be necessary—although I accept that it is necessary now—for our children to go to Hungary for that type of provision, because it will be available here. Nor will it be necesssary for children to go to schools which have opted out, because our mainstream educational system will be comprehensive enough to respond to their needs and demands.

Mr. Forsyth: Yesterday I visited a special school and a number of parents told me that already some education authorities are saying that the powers which will be available to them will not be used by them because they do

not believe that the type of provision at the Peto institute is appropriate. The point of allowing for self-governing status for special schools is that it means that it is not then up to one education authority or to one education authority's committee to decide what will be the form of specialist provision; there is an allowance for diversity which follows parental preference.
The hon. Gentleman and I share, on this narrow issue, much in common in terms of our views of the direction in which we should be going. I caution him against going too far down that road, because there are some who are dogmatic about what is right in special needs provision. This provision enables diversity of approach to be retained.

Mr. Clarke: I am always prepared to listen carefully to the Minister. He worries about people being dogmatic. I am not sure whether he is the right person to give that sort of lecture, especially in the context of the Bill. Like him, I meet many parents of children with learning difficulties in the special educational sphere. I find even less enthusiasm among those parents for the principle of opting out than among parents of children in mainstream education. I look forward with interest to the development of that debate.
In conclusion, my hon. Friends have established that the Government's departure not just from the principle of comprehensive education, which has already been shown to be successful, but towards, as they see it, embracing elitist education by introducing the principle of opting out, has clearly been rejected by the vast majority of parents in Scotland. The Government are doing a disservice not just to educational traditions—I have already made it clear that I do not believe that those traditions were necessarily in the best interests of all Scottish children—but to children with special needs.
I am not saying that the Government are introducing a Dickensian approach—others might do so, but I am trying to be fair even to the Minister. However, their views are already outdated and are recognised as such by the people of Scotland. What I do say, as Charles Dickens said, is:
In the little world in which children have their existence, whomsoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived or so finely felt as injustice.
The Bill represents an injustice to the majority of Scotland's children, and especially to those with special needs. For that reason, I support the new clause.

Mr. Michael Brown: I listened carefully to the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), in which he gave the game away. He implied that there will be tremendous parental demand to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. The logic of the new clause is fundamentally flawed, because it clearly implies that there will be such an overwhelming parental demand to take advantage of the self-governing provisions that it is necessary to circumscribe them and to put restrictions into the Bill at every twist and turn. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee got used to such classic restrictions as this.
Indeed, we come right back to where we started, with the Gainsborough question, which was posed early in our Committee proceedings by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). My hon. Friend the Minister consistently asked Opposition Members, whenever they made the sort of speeches that they did—I accept, for the best of intentions and reasons—what they were seeking to do. Throughout all the


speeches tonight and all those made in the Standing Committee, Opposition Members have given the game away. Although they know that there will be tremendous parental demand for these provisions they are trying to argue—they have done so tonight—that parents in Scotland will make no such demands. All the amendments and the new clauses—especially new clause 2—make it clear that the Opposition are terrified that there will be considerable demand for these provisions.
I shall dwell first on the way in which I read the Bill and then, as on many previous occasions during the Bill's passage—I shall deal—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wish to intervene? He now has the opportunity of challenging directly "the most obnoxious hon. Member in the House"—to use his description. That is what he said about how I conducted myself in Committee. I hope that you Mr. Deputy Speaker, agree that I am taking this new clause seriously. I am speaking tonight in exactly the same way as I spoke in Standing Committee. I found it offensive for the hon. Member for Garscadden to say the things that he did during the guillotine debate about the way in which I conducted myself in Standing Committee. I took the trouble to turn up for virtually every sitting and to take all the debates seriously, whereas he dropped in for only an hour or two on one day of our two or three month-long Committee.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that that was born of frustration on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? The hon. Gentleman had completely miscalculated. He had failed to take the lead for the Opposition and had to see my hon. Friend the Minister and the other Conservative Members make complete mincemeat of the Opposition with a measure that will utlimately be very popular with parents in Scotland.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wonder what, if anything, we shall hear from the hon. Member for Garscadden if he should seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later on.
I return to the way in which I interpret the Bill. I shall restate the important point made by my hon. Friend the Minister in Standing Committee at 11.15 pm on 18 April—it is well worth restating—to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has referred. The Bill itself introduces two hurdles for self-governing schools and their admissions policy, which do not exist under local education authorities in England, Wales and Scotland at the moment. It is possible for selection to be introduced in local authority schools on the vote of the local education authority committee. I should know because I live about eight miles from the border between—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members will be courteous enough to allow me to finish my sentence. We have heard about obnoxious Conservative Members, and Opposition Members should now allow Conservative Members simply to finish their sentences.
I live just eight miles from the border between Humberside and Lincolnshire. The county of Lincolnshire has a selection policy. Children there can go to grammar or secondary modern schools and take the 11-plus

examination. Parents with jobs in my constituency often choose to live the other side of the county boundary so that their children are educated by the Lincolnshire education authority rather than the Humberside education authority. As the House may be aware, a proposal is currently before the Boundary Commission that south Humberside should go into Lincolnshire. I know that many of my constituents will look forward to the opportunities provided by the Lincolnshire education authority.

Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that other factors might be involved in this mass exodus over the border? Those people might be running away from their Member of Parliament.

Mr. Brown: If any are running away, they are certainly not my supporters, because at three successive general elections since 1979 my majority has increased from three figures, to four figures, to five figures. If people are running away, they are not Conservative supporters. Perhaps my political opponents have given up the ghost and are clearing off elsewhere.
To return to the main provisions of the Bill, we need to take the new clause seriously although its logic is fundamentally flawed. The Bill does not alter the current position. All that it does is place two hurdles in the way of self-governing schools which, as I have already said, do not apply to education authority schools. One is the parental ballot and the other is the approval of the Secretary of State. No such hurdles are at present in the way of education authority schools in Scotland or, from my own experience, in England. Lincolnshire is the classic example. If Opposition Members are worried that selection might be introduced into the Scottish education system, they must believe that the vast majority of parents are waiting for self-governing status. Therefore, the wishes of Opposition Members are already protected.
Perhaps I may bring to bear the experience of England. One advantage of having English Members on the Standing Committee was that we already have the Education Reform Act 1988 on the statute book for England; it is not dissimilar to the legislation that I hope will shortly be on the statute book for Scotland. We have had experience of the debate that is taking place in England. As English Members of Parliament, we have been following closely the way in which parents have been taking advantage of the provisions of the Education Reform Act.
I can tell the House of my local experience, for it was just down the road in the seaside resort adjoining the one that I represent, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), that the parents of children at a school in Skegness voted overwhelmingly to take advantage of the provisions of the Education Reform Act. There is no evidence that the introduction of selection is the driving force behind a large number of cases south of the border where parents are voting with their feet very much in favour of self-governing status; in the majority of cases, it is happening where Labour education authorities are in control of education. I am sure that the position will be the same north of the border. We already have the example of Jordanhill school, which was referred to at great length by my hon. Friend the Minister and by a large number of hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who served on the Standing Committee.
The Opposition have deliberately misinterpreted the Bill, which seeks to increase educational opportunity and to raise the standards of education. Parents want their children to go to schools that get results.

Mr. McLeish: In Scotland, most children are exposed to education where standards are high, and the standard of education is improving. Standards measured against any other criteria are also improving. What, then, is the problem?

Mr. Brown: That is the complacency that we have come to expect of the hon. Gentleman. I remember reading an article by him just before we started our proceedings in Standing Committee. I think that it is worthy of repetition. We were told that what was good enough for Henry McLeish's children was good enough for everybody else. That has been the position taken by the hon. Gentleman from the time that he wrote that article all the way through the proceedings in Committee.
On that basis, I might say that what is good enough for Michael Brown is good enough for everybody else. I failed my 11-plus. I went to a secondary modern school from the age of 11 to the age of 18, but I did not fail my A-levels. I got good grades through the teachers who taught me in that school. I got grade A in English literature, grade B in economics and grade C in history. I accept that I may have failed the 11-plus because I was lazy and probably more concerned with cricket and football.
If I have a criticism of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends the Ministers, it is that the Bill does not allow enough opportunity for school boards, parents and boards of management to consider their selection policy. It is already circumscribed, as the hon. Gentleman said when he quoted what the Secretary of State said on 6 March in the Second Reading debate in column 625. I believe that there is a case to be made for selection. If I have a small criticism of the Bill, it is that, because of the two hurdles, it circumscribes the opportunities for selection.
If there is a valid criticism of my hon. Friends, it is that once again they have been modest, reasonable and not at all extreme. Once again, as usual, my hon. Friend is the modest Minister. I suggest that there is a case for not making those hurdles as stiff as he and the Secretary of State have made them. I accept the general thesis on where the Government want to be. The Government want to ensure that parents can send their children to schools that get results. I cannot accept the complacent attitude that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Fife, Central. I thought that he gave the game away very effectively. He seemed to suggest that there was nothing wrong anywhere, that every child in Scotland was getting the education he deserved and that there was no room for improvement. I do not accept that. It is always dangerous when politicians sit back complacently, saying that everything is marvellous and there is no need for change.
If everything is marvellous, perhaps it is because of the 25 per cent. increase in expenditure in real terms by the Government on Scottish education in the last 10 years. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that everything in the garden is rosy, perhaps it is because of the tremendous resources that have been put into education. We cannot have it both ways. I am prepared to admit to the parents and children of Scotland, as I am prepared to admit to the parents and children of England, that, notwithstanding the massive increase in financial resources for the education system,

everything in the garden is not yet rosy, but I believe that the Education Reform Act in England and this Bill in Scotland will redress the position.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the complacency is made altogether worse when there is evidence of declining standards, as has become apparent from the assessment of achievement programme? The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has joined the somewhat irresponsible forces who argue that the evidence is suspect. They adopt a policy of shooting the messenger when they do not like the message.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. It is worth drawing to the attention of the House some words of the Minister in Committee. In regard to Scottish education he said that the position was like a school report—"Could do better". That is the right and healthy attitude that a Scottish Education Minister should take. It is a credit to my hon. Friend and to the Scottish Office that they recognise that, notwithstanding the massive resources that have been put into Scottish education, there comes a point when money alone does not solve the problem, and we have to raise the standards of education in Scotland.
The purpose of the Bill is to do precisely that. I believe that the new clause would weaken the Bill, which is what the Opposition want to do. They do not want to see the improvements that the Government envisage as a result of the Bill. They want to wreck the Bill, and that is why they have put down such amendments.
As I promised, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has covered the point.

9 pm

Mr. Brown: I am glad to have one satisfied customer from the Opposition.
This may be the last opportunity that I may have to participate in the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. McAllion: I fervently hope so.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that he hopes that that is the case. I know that the Opposition have had a rough ride with regard to the English Members serving on the Committee. The Labour party—or it might have been the Scottish National party—

Mr. Salmond: Be precise.

Mr. Brown: I cannot remember. As far as I am concerned, they are all Socialists—they are all the same.
One or other of the Opposition parties serving on the Committee issued a press release, even before the first sitting, saying what a disgrace it was that there were English Members serving on the Standing Committee. After the first sitting of the Standing Committee, all they did was sit there mute doing their constituency correspondence. From day one they got their comeuppance, because we have considered the proceedings on the Bill responsibly and seriously and we have read up—[Interruption] The problem for Opposition Members is that we have read too many of their articles. We have drawn too much public attention to some of the things that they have said. We have obtained speeches that have been made one day and press releases issued the next day, and we have drawn attention to the inconsistencies.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we were rather more aware of the views of Councillor Charles Gray than were members of the Opposition?

Mr. Brown: That is right. I was upbraided by an hon. Member opposite when I referred incorrectly to councillor Charles Gray as Sir Charles Gray, the chairman of the Strathclyde education committee. I went straight to The Times last Saturday to see whether Councillor Gray had been made a knight, because I believed that he should be knighted for his services to Scottish education. In the past few months, Councillor Gray and my hon. Friend the Scottish Education Minister have done a great deal for Scottish education. We are right to pay tribute to the work of Councillor Gray, who I hope will be a "sir" in the not too distant future. They have done a great deal of practical work to raise the standards of education.
I have a shrewd suspicion that the one local councillor who will be waiting with bated breath for the royal assent to the Bill will be Councillor Charles Gray. From some of the statements he has already made, it appears that he actually regrets that the Bill is not yet on the statute book. If he were a Member of the House, he would not be supporting the new clause, because he wants to be where my hon. Friend the Minister is, but he wants to be there a little earlier. Some of the speeches we have heard of Councillor Gray in the press reports during the Committee stage of the Bill indicate that he cannot wait for the Bill to be enacted. We owe it to Councillor Gray—I hope that in the new year's honours list in 1990 he will be Sir Charles —to reject the new clause and to get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Mr. McAllion: It was obvious that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) had not read the new clause, because he made virtually no reference to it in 20 minutes of drivel similar to that which we heard from him in Committee. At one point the Minister intervened and said that people who did not like the message blamed the messenger. Of course, if anyone is guilty of that sentiment, it is the Minister and his friends in the Scottish Office, because, if they could not get the message last Thursday at the ballot box in Scotland about this Bill and the plans for the National Health Service, they will never get the message.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) failed to recognise that the Scottish people liked neither the message nor the messenger?

Mr. McAllion: That is precisely the point to which I was coming. The Minister traipses around Scotland speaking to anyone who will listen to him from the media. He says that the doctors and the teachers do not understand the message. However, they understand the message and the messenger, which is why the majority of Scots are represented by Opposition parties.

Mr. Allan Stewart: On the swing last Thursday, the Scottish National party would regain Dundee.

Mr. McAllion: If the SNP regains Dundee, there will not have been a swing to the Left, which is what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) claimed in Glasgow, Central. If there is a swing to the Left, Labour will hold Dundee easily in the next election.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unwise for Conservative Members to refer to Glasgow, Central considering the pathetic result the Conservative party achieved?

Mr. McAllion: That is true. The Tories obviously believe that saving deposits in elections in Scotland constitutes a good performance. It shows the depths to which they have sunk.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said that one of the advantages of English Members taking part in discussions on the Bill was that they were able to relate their experiences of English education legislation and inform other hon. Members who do not represent English constituencies. There is an element of truth in that, as long as the English Members tell us the truth about the English experience. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes talked about the grades he received in school but he did not receive a grade A in truth. He talked about Lincolnshire education authority being a classic example of how an authority provides choice for parents and encourages pupils to come into its area. However, he did not tell us about South Park high school in Lincoln in which 97 per cent. of parents voted in favour of self-governing status in an 88 per cent. turnout. The Secretary of State for Education and Science refused to allow the school to opt out on that basis.

Mr. McFall: Does my hon. Friend agree that our objection to English Members is that they know nothing about Scottish education? The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned Charles Gray but he did not know whether he had been knighted or not. The hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the issue of the old qualifying examination in Scotland. The English Members were chosen for their ignorance of Scottish education. Many of them knew more about and had more sympathy with South Africa than they did about Scottish education.

Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science refused to allow the school in Lincolnshire to opt out because he said:
I must be satisfied that the school is likely to succeed.
In Committee the Minister said:
We want only good candidates for self-governing status, not lame ducks. We want those schools to be the ones that succeed."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11 April 1989; c. 478.]
If we break through the code in which Tories speak, that means that schools in working-class areas that are full of working-class kids will not have an opportunity to opt out. The Bill is not about giving parents greater choice but about allowing a small elite to opt out into grammar-type schools. That is why the Secretary of State is picking and choosing the schools that can opt out. That is what the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister want and that is why new clauses such as this are essential.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that he has a cheek to express such an argument when, in Committee, he argued that the Bill ought to be amended, as it was today, to allow for proper consultation with the education authority so that the decision is not taken solely by parents but that the Secretary of State will have other arguments and considerations to take into account? The hon. Gentleman is now condemning my


right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science because he has taken other factors into account. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He simply chooses whatever argument seems most effective to knock the Government. That is why he and his colleagues got into such a mess in Committee.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister has made a weak intervention. The only person who decides whether a school may opt out is the Secretary of State. Others may be consulted but Scotland has had 10 years of being consulted by Secretaries of State who represent the Tory Government. They might listen but they do not act upon what they hear. They simply go through the formality of consulting and that is why the ballot procedure is not properly democratic. It does not really matter how the parents vote, it does not matter what the education authority or what the parents of children in the feeder primary schools might say because, ultimately, the Secretary of State makes up his own mind. He wants to wreck the comprehensive system in Scotland and allow schools to opt out if he thinks that they can form the backbone of a new grammar type-school so that such a provision can be put in place across Scotland. That is what the Bill is about. The Minister is not kidding anyone that the Bill is about increasing choice or allowing people to make up their own minds.
It is important that the Minister gives a clear commitment that there will be no reintroduction of general academic selection to secondary schools. The Minister said that he has made the position clear, but nothing could be further from the truth. He has avoided giving anything like the commitment given by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading, when he categorically rejected the reintroduction of selectivity.
The Minister was pressed time and again in Committee, and again today, to give that commitment, but he refused. He said that the Government had recognised special needs such as dance, music, Gaelic and the classics. He went all round the houses, but he would not give a commitment that there would be no reintroduction of general academic selection. Several Conservative Members suggested that the Minister had given a clear assurance in Committee that no rural schools would be allowed to reintroduce general academic selection that would keep out any children. The Minister did not give any such commitment for urban schools such as those in Dundee, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Until he gives such a commitment, there will be a deep suspicion that that is what the Bill is all about, no matter what he says.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) made an honest contribution to our debates in Committee. He was quite open about wanting the reintroduction of general academic selection. He said that he wanted the return of grammar schools in Scotland, in the way that they are now returning in England and Wales. The Minister congratulated his hon. Friend on his effective speech, which he said he appreciated. He surely cannot say that he appreciates his hon. Friend's call for the return of grammar schools and at the same time pretend that the Government will not allow that to happen in Scotland. Either the Minister supports his hon. Friend or he does not. He certainly gave the impression of supporting his hon. Friend in Committee.
The Minister used to belong to the No Turning Back group of Conservative Members, a number of whom are

present tonight. That group produced an education pamphlet that clearly attacked the comprehensive system and local authority schools and called for the reintroduction of grammar schools. The hon. Gentleman was not a Minister when he put his name to the pamphlet in 1986. He was careful to withdraw his name when he became a Minister, but he has never taken the opportunity to reject the pamphlet's proposals. I suspect that he still stands by them and awaits the opportunity to bring them into force. The Minister is nodding, so I assume that he intends to reintroduce academic selection.
On 18 April the Minister cited an example from the independent sector, and said:
Let us consider the variety of schools in the independent sector. Some place a greater emphasis on academic achievement while others emphasise the expressive arts, sport and so on. Parents choose the schools which they believe will be most suited to their children. We wish to see that sort of diversity and choice in the state system and the Bill will deliver that."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 April 1987; c. 782.]
There are certainly schools in the independent sector that concentrate on academic excellence, but they use selection by academic ability to admit pupils. The Minister was basically saying that he would replicate that system in the state sector. He is all over the place. He will not assure the House that he is opposed to the reintroduction of grammar schools—or senior secondary schools as they are called in Scotland.
The uncertainty and ambiguity of the Minister's answers were reflected even in his description of the way in which a school that opts out will maintain its characteristics. The Minister explained that the school board would have to set out the proposed admissions policy if it was granted self-governing status. Within that policy, it would have to stress any special emphasis which it wanted to characterise the provision of education in the school. Once it had secured a majority in the ballot and gained the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the description of the admissions policy was a binding obligation on the board of management taking over the running of the school. As the Minister said, that would he a guarantee to parents of what the school would be like in future. That is fine, and everyone would support that idea. However, the Minister then, through clause 28, creates the mechanism by which that binding guarantee can be ripped up by the parents if they achieve a simple majority in a ballot.
9.15 pm
The binding agreement to ensure that the school stayed within the characteristics of its proposed admissions policy would be thrown out the window as soon as the board had the simple majority and the Secretary of State's approval to change the characteristic. The Minister said that that would be a significant change which would be of considerable importance to parents, neighbourhood schools and education authorities. That very important change is made possible in clauses 16 and 28. The Minister has studiously avoided any opportunity of saying that the Secretary of State will not allow anyone to use the mechanism to reintroduce general academic selection when a school opts out.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to hurdles. The Secretary of State's permission is certainly


not a hurdle. At the moment, a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland would be keen to allow any break-up of the comprehensive system.
The Minister has been very careful to restrict the people who are allowed to take part in the ballot of parents. He suggested in Committee that the parents of children in feeder primaries should be given the right to vote, but that was knocked on the head by the Tory majority on the Committee because they wanted to restrict the ballot only to parents who had children at the school. It was suggested that staff should be allowed to participate in the ballot. However, that was also knocked on the head. They will be forcibly transferred from one employer to another. They will have no chance to vote in the ballot. An amendment earlier today would have given adult users of a school the right to take part in a ballot, but the Minister made sure that that amendment was not passed.
The purpose behind all this is to keep the ballot to an absolute minimum. That will create a community of people who might be tempted into voting for something on the basis that they might get something out of it at the expense of the local authority. If the number of people allowed to vote is small enough, they have a good chance of winning.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made a disgraceful intervention earlier today. He deliberately filibustered on an important amendment which prevented a vote being taken on it. That amendment would have required a two-thirds majority. The Government were careful to ensure that only a simple majority is required to change the characteristics of the school.

Mr. Bill Walker: It appears that the term "filibuster" now has a new meaning. A speech lasting less than five minutes is now a filibuster, even when that speech includes a number of lengthy interventions. When the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) reads Hansard, he will hardly be able to substantiate his charge. I stated very clearly why I supported my colleagues on the Government Front Bench and why I was against the proposal for a two thirds majority. I thought that the debate was very serious and that it was discussed fully and seriously. My constituents will understand why I took that position. It had nothing to do with filibustering.

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman visits the Library and consults the Oxford English Dictionary, he will see that filibustering does not necessarily mean talking for a long time. The hon. Gentleman knew that if he did not stop speaking before 6.30 pm, a vote on the amendment for a two-thirds majority would not be taken. He also was aware that he had made his points very clearly and was talking for no purpose other than to ensure that the vote was not taken. The Government Whip whispered to him and told him to ensure that the amendment was not reached so that the Government could secure the idea that the majority required in the ballots could involve fewer than half the parents voting in favour. The Secretary of State for Scotland agreed with that.
If the hon. Member for Tayside, North doubts that, he should consider what happened last week in England. In a school to which the Minister referred, 56 per cent. of parents voted for opting out and the Secretary of State for

Education and Science allowed them to do that. What the Minister did not tell anyone was that the 56 per cent. of parents who voted were a minority of those who were entitled to vote. Therefore, that school was allowed to opt out of education authority control without gaining the support of even half the parents or children at that school for such a move. That is why the Opposition are opposed to the idea. The ballot is simply a hurdle that the Government can manipulate in order to make sure that they get their friends over. If the Secretary of State can achieve that, he will.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). If he had sat down before half-past six, I would have made my contribution.

Mr. McAllion: I saw the Government Whip whisper to the hon. Member for Tayside, North and then go round and whisper into the ear of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to make sure that, if the hon. Member for Tayside, North sat down early, the hon. Member for Eastwood would speak. Both hon. Members took part in a Government ploy and it is a disgrace that hon. Members should be prevented from voting on such an important issue.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he has just referred to decisions made with a two-thirds majority. He and I know that he was elected on considerably less than a 50 per cent. simple majority. But no one disputes—I do not—that he represents Dundee, East, and he does so most effectively. I hope that he continues to do so, but not if he continues to criticise the vote at the school to which he referred and the turnout there.

Mr. McAllion: Again, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) dealt clearly with that problem. We are talking about a major institutional change whereby a school is taken out of the education authority's control and given direct funding under the Secretary of State for Scotland. The next step along may be the private sector. Such a decision cannot be taken lightly on the basis of a simple majority. No one would argue that such a decision should be made on a two-thirds majority. A Member of Parliament can be voted out at a general election, but once a school is taken out of the education authority sector it is not easy to return it. The Secretary of State for Scotland makes the decision, and if he says no, nothing can be done about it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is drawing a parallel that is wrong and makes no sense.
I know exactly what the Minister is about. He is about wrecking the comprehensive system in Scotland—breaking up education authority schools. In Committee, I remember him describing the introduction of comprehensive education between 1969 and 1974. He said that it was the most fundamental change in the history of Scottish education up to that time and that it had been brought about by the Labour party. The problem is that the Minister and his friends have never accepted that fundamental change and have worked all their lives to reverse it. They started to do it with the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and now they are moving on to the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Leigh: So what?

Mr. McAllion: I will tell the hon. Gentleman so what. Conservative Members should not give us the nonsense that this is all about parental choice. It is about destroying comprehensive education. It is the only thing that it has ever been about and that is why we are here tonight. If the Minister says that it is not about that he must accept the new clause that has been tabled in the name of my hon. Friends. If he does not, he does not have the same candour and honesty as the Secretary of State for Scotland, who at least says what he thinks. He says that he will not allow general selectivity to be reintroduced. The Minister will not allow those words to come out of his mouth and that is why the new clause is important.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) performed a service in Committee and has also done so on the Floor of the House. Yet again, he has drawn attention to the excellent work of the No Turning Back group, of which I am a member. We enjoyed that contribution of the hon. Gentleman and his earlier contributions to the formulation of English law when he dashed down the Committee Corridor to vote on some English matter. He has certainly played his part in our proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) ably pointed out that the Opposition's fears about selectivity were unfounded and that the Bill would open up the positive aspects of selectivity. My hon. Friend was right to reiterate the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee when, in response to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), he stated:
Nothing can prevent any education authority having a selective intake in any of its schools … The Bill does not alter the current position. All it does is to put two hurdles in the way of self-governing schools which do not apply to education authority schools. One is the parental ballot and the other is the approval of the Secretary of State … It is possible for selection to be introduced into local authority schools on the vote of the education committee. It will not be possible for selectivity to be introduced into self-governing schools on the vote of the board of management. That is the fundamental difference. It will be much harder to introduce selection into a self-governing school than into a local authority school."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 April 1989; c. 791–92]
That makes the position clear.
I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) in respect of local authority schools in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) also raised that matter. However, I cannot believe that in a ballot parents will exclude children for whom there is no alternative provision. I am sure that that would not be their wish.
If Opposition Members are correct in saying that schools will not want to become self-governing, my right hon. Friend has no cause for concern. His point is well taken, but he overlooks the Bill's general purpose and why parents are likely to vote for self-governing status. I cannot believe that parents would vote to exclude a minority or even a large number of pupils because they fail to meet the criteria of academic ability, as that would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. If parents vote for self-government, it will not be to exclude less bright children but to create the ethos they want and which they feel the local education authority has not provided. That is genuine parental choice, and that is what the Bill is all about.
We believe that the Bill will provide parents with greater opportunities to have an input into the type of school that their children attend. It is not true to say that, where schools in England and Wales have voted to opt out, that has provided an opportunity for selectivity. The real reason is best illustrated by the example of Baverstock school in the Maypole area of Birmingham, where the headmaster said:
Out here, people thought that they had been abandoned"—
and when not abandoned, meddled with. Parents at that school took the opportunity provided by the Government to be in charge of their own destiny. The introduction of selectivity did not enter into it.
That school acquired a bad reputation, suffered from it, and became unpopular. Under the new headmaster and his team, the school was turned around. One of their innovations was to introduce a system whereby the staff are addressed as "Sir" or "Ma'am", uniform is compulsory, and every day begins with assembly. Such a regime was not offered by the local education authority but was wanted by the parents. They voted for self-governing status for that reason, not to introduce selectivity. They wanted to change and protect the ethos of the school in a way that the local education authority would not have permitted.

Mr. Leigh: The point must be made that it is not just a matter of pumping more resources into schools. It is also a question of changing their ethos. When schools become self-governing, they may not necessarily be given more resources, but their ethos will alter.

Mr. Howarth: That is true. Opposition Members underestimate the desire of parents to bring back some of the old-fashioned virtues and notions in schools where they have been almost driven out.

Mr. George Foulkes: Bring back flogging!

Mr. Howarth: As one who was chastised with the cane at school, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although other things may have done me harm, that was not one of them. I was very conscious of the need to preserve the discipline of the school.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been under considerable pressure to resist the idea that self-governing schools ought to be able to introduce an element of selectivity. I accept what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside about the problems in rural areas, but in densely populated urban areas containing a number of schools, diversity of educational provision could be an advantage. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would keep quiet for a moment, he might learn something to his advantage.

Mr. Foulkes: I doubt that very much, on the evidence that we have had so far.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has had too good a dinner; that is the trouble. As a Douglas from the borders, I am used to hearing the speeches of well-refreshed members of my family from time to time.
It is wrong to suggest that parents now have unlimited choice, despite the parents' charter that the Government


introduced in Scotland. Throughout the United Kingdom—Scotland is not the only victim—there is rationing by catchment area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes pointed out, if people want to opt for the educational provision that exists in Lincolnshire, they must move house. People will often move to a particular area and buy a house there simply to be able to enter the catchment area of a certain school. It is wholly untrue that, in a great Socialist Valhalla, people have been provided with choice by benevolent Socialist councillors and their local education authorities.
I do not see why a school should not be able to set academic criteria when there are alternative schools. To deny that possibility is to imply that academic attainment is all that counts, which is not so. Today sporting ability can lead not only to a fulfilling career but to an extremely lucrative one, and the same applies to artistic and creative abilities. The new clause therefore strikes me as unnecessary.
I believe that, in some instances, academic selection could certainly be entertained by the Secretary of State. If Opposition Members fear that, they should bear it in mind that my right hon. and learned Friend has put it on the record categorically that he is against selection on the basis of academic ability. [Interruption.] He has said that; it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that I ought to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but as I am in a generous mood I will do so.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that the same Secretary of State made an absolute pledge that he would not introduce the provisions of this Bill? That shows how trustworthy his promises are.

Mr. Howarth: I do not believe that that is true.

Mr. Foulkes: It is true.

Mr. Howarth: If it were true, and my right hon. and learned Friend had changed his mind, he must be the most sensible of men, and I am sure that the people of Scotland will be even more grateful for his flexibility of mind.
The Opposition have completely failed to make a case for the amendment. The Bill provides hurdles to ensure that some of their worse fears are confounded. A very good case can be made for academic selection. The Bill does not destroy comprehensive education. Many people believe that a lot of our educational ills can be put down to Mrs. Shirley Williams who compulsorily made education comprehensive. However, this Bill is not the measure to change that.

Mr. Salmond: I do not know why the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and other hon. Members are in difficulties about the wording of the new clause. It is a model of clarity, if it is compared with many of the amendments and new clauses.
The phrase "general academic selection" is well understood. The hon. Member for Tayside, North agreed with the principle of the new clause but he said that he was worried about its wording. The Under-Secretary of State has it within his power to bring about an historic

compromise between the hon. Member for Tayside, North and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) by giving an assurance that he will introduce an appropriately worded amendment in the other place. Such an assurance would, I am sure, be received favourably by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. It would also show whether the Government are serious about not allowing selectivity to creep into Scottish education.
The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) often say what the Minister is thinking about educational questions. Both of them, drawing on their exhaustive knowledge of the Scottish education system, have supported academic selection. I have always thought that it is invidious to compare education systems. However, it is appropriate to compare the education system with which the hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes and for Cannock and Burntwood are familiar and the education system in Scotland.
The English system is fragmented. It is partly selective and substantially private. Its achievements should be compared with the Scottish comprehensive system. In Scotland, 21 per cent. of our children gain the necessary qualifications for higher education. In England and Wales, only 15 per cent. of children gain those qualifications. I do not claim that 21 per cent. in Scotland is a remarkable achievement. It should be substantially higher than that.
The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes and for Cannock and Burntwood have offered us some lessons that they say we in Scotland should learn. They have used the power of their votes in Scottish Standing Committees to push through amendments that they favour, but they should base their offer of the lessons that Scotland should learn on the experience of better international education systems rather than on the experience of an education system that is substantially worse, according to a number of criteria, than the Scottish one.
The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to rural schools. I support his arguments. If selectivity were to be introduced in rural schools, pupils would have to be bussed substantial distances to other schools. The only alternative would be to establish in rural communities schools for pupils with lower attainments. Neither of those possibilities is attractive to any Scottish Member of Parliament who represents a rural constituency. There should be no exclusion on any grounds of a pupil from a rural community school. That view is strongly held by all Scottish Members of Parliament with rural constituencies.
Conservative Members have consistently argued that it would be simpler for an education authority in Scotland to adopt the selective approach than it would be for a school that had opted out and that was awaiting the Secretary of State's decision. There is a fairly substantial difference. Scottish education authorities are democratically elected. They represent, one hopes, the local communities within their area. The same certainly cannot be claimed for the Secretary of State for Scotland. His views of Scottish education are certainly not representative of the Scottish community. Earlier this evening, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), said that he did not want an unrepresentative minority to grab control of a school in Scotland. The problem we face is that an unrepresentative minority has grabbed control, not


of a single school but of the entire education system in Scotland. That was supported by the English battalions in Committee and in the House tonight.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) suggested that the criterion for selecting English Members to serve on the Standing Committee was ignorance of the Scottish education system. I rather suspect that the criterion for selection was familiarity with the Minister responsible for Scottish education. It is clear from the interchange between the surviving members of the No Turning Back group—perhaps the Minister is still a member of such a group—that their purpose was to egg the Minister on to greater and more radical things. Unfortunately the greater and more radical things are not wanted by the vast majority of the Scottish community.
Finally, we are told that we must accept the assurances of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said that he would be prepared to accept such assurances, but I remember the right hon. Gentleman telling the House on a previous occasion that during the last general election he specifically inquired about the possibility of opting out being introduced into Scottish education and had received an assurance from Conservative central office that there were no such plans. That is the credibility of assurances from the Secretary of State and from the Government Front Bench. Had those assurances proved valid in the past, we should not be discussing this legislation this evening.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had an interesting debate on new clause 2. Time and again, opponents of our proposals for self-governing schools return to their claim that giving parents the right to seek greater involvement in the running of schools will bring about the return of senior secondary schools, complete with a qualifying examination.
Those opponents claim to base their view on the existence of machinery in clause 28 designed to allow self-governing schools to respond flexibly to future developments by seeking to change their fundamental characteristics. By now they are well aware that any such change requires the support of parents voting in a ballot and the approval of the Secretary of State. The clause 28 machinery exists as a protection for the existing fundamental characteristics of a school that opts for self-governing status. We have deliberately made it difficult to alter those characteristics—more difficult than any parallel changes in an education authority school. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) argues that the difference is that local authorities are more democratic. He appears to believe that a local authority education committee is more representative of the wishes of parents.

Mr. Foulkes: They are more representative than you are.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has returned from his dinner and has not listened carefully to the arguments in the 15 minutes for which he has graced us with his presence.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is seeking to argue that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is not representative of the parents, but although the decision to alter the characteristics of a school is taken by the Secretary of State, it can come to the Secretary of State only when a majority of the parents have voted for

it. The process is started by the parents. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to argue that the education authority committees are more representative of the wishes of parents than are the parents themselves.
If we accept the view that self-governing schools will lead to a return of selective schools, our opponents must believe that enough Scottish parents are sufficiently dissatisfied with the present system of secondary schools to support a return to selective schools. What evidence do they have for that? Why do they continue to make those claims? In any secondary school a fair number of parents will have other children still at primary school. They at least are unlikely to be strong supporters of bringing back fully selective entry.
In many parts of the country, a school that aimed to exclude large numbers by a selective entry test would simply find itself unable to attract sufficient pupils to remain viable, and any proposals under clause 28 require the consent of the Secretary of State. He will have regard to the viability of the particular school and any consequences for the wider provision of education for all pupils in the area. On Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend made it quite clear that there was no question of a return to the selective secondary schools of the past.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked me to repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee that there would be no question of allowing selection in any community—rural or otherwise—where the effect would be that children were denied the opportunity of going to the only possible, practical school. I am happy to repeat the undertaking that I clearly gave in Committee.
9.45 pm
I am puzzled why the Opposition should be continually obsessed with that issue. In Committee I made it clear that one use of admission arrangements based on ability or aptitude could be in a school operating a specialist unit of one sort or another. The new clause carries the heading "general academic selection", with the suggestion, perhaps, that particular academic selection would be more acceptable.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) initiated a debate on the concept of giftedness. In the view of Opposition Members, specific provision for giftedness might be seen as acceptable. We still do not know the hon. Gentleman's view on that matter. It appears that the selection of children based on a gift for music or dance is entirely virtuous. We have established that. However, selection for specialist facilities relating to ability in classics or minority foreign languages seems to be a more difficult subject for Opposition Members. They recognise that that might be the most effective and perhaps the only sensible means of making such provision, but such arrangements were clearly coming too close to the bogy of general academic selection. Certainly, any form of selection based on a particular gift with mathematics or mainstream languages was to be ruled out.
What are we to make of all of this? One clue is that Strathclyde regional council makes specialist provision for music at Douglas academy at Milngavie and for dance at Knightswood. By definition, those arrangements must be virtuous, and recognition of special ability in more academic subjects, however, is to be an absolutely no-go area.
The drafting of the new clause is less than certain. It is against academic selection in self-governing schools, but it appears to define academic selection by reference to any form of selection based on the ability and aptitude of pupils. I accept that Opposition Members do not intend to exclude the necessary judgments on specialist provision to be made for those with defined special educational needs. They probably did not intend to exclude selection for music or dance units, but the new clause certainly does that. Our view is that the Bill should not rule out such changes It should be open to schools to develop all sorts of specialist provision where they find it possible and valuable to do so. It is for parents in the first instance to vote on whether they consider proposals for such provision acceptable.
Diversity is one of the main themes of our proposals. This new clause is against diversity, and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister was surprisingly brief in replying to the debate on the new clause.

Mr. Forsyth: To enable the hon. Gentleman to have time to respond.

Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration.
I noticed also that the Minister stuck closely to his brief. For example, he did not stray from it to agree with the comments of, for example, his hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). Perhaps he thought that, had he strayed from it, he might have let slip the true intentions of the Bill, rather than remaining constrained because of the present political realities in the country.
Although the Minister uttered words of reassurance to his hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about rural schools, he did not reiterate the commitment given by the Secretary of State about not permitting this legislation to be used as a method of reintroducing selection into Scottish education. The Minister did not tonight give such an undertaking. I will resume my seat immediately if the hon. Gentleman wishes to rise to give that undertaking. He simply made a passing reference to the Secretary of State and said that there was no chance of returning to the selective education of the past.
That is a different undertaking from saying that schools which opt out will not be able to reintroduce selection. I accept that not many schools, if any, will opt out, but we want to know—as I say, I will allow him to intervene immediately if he wishes to reassure us—whether those schools will not be able to reintroduce selection of the type that we know we are discussing. I am not talking about a general provision for Scottish education but about the schools in question.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. Friend gave a clear commitment on Second Reading. He is the Secretary of State. He declared the Government's policy. I support the Government's policy and the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House by seeking to look at nuances of differences of view which do not exist.

Mr. Galbraith: The House will have noted that the Minister again failed to give the assurance for which I

asked. We are bound to be suspicious when it comes to selection, particularly following the contributions of the hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes, for Cannock and Burntwood and for Hexham (Mr. Amos), who is no longer in his place, in which they clearly said that in their view selection should be reintroduced into the Scottish education system and that that would be their intention if they had their way.
We are now discussing the crux of the Bill. We have so far tonight discussed some important technicalities of the measure, such as ballots, majorities and special needs education. We now discuss what we regard as the main problem, that of the reintroduction of selection into the Scottish education system, a system that got rid of selection many years ago.
We do not want that system reintroduced by the back door. In Committee there was much talk about the Government reintroducing such matters through the front or back doors. Our fear is that they wish to reintroduce selection through the back door. That is why we are totally opposed to the measure. The Minister spoke of hurdles, but they are not very high. Certainly any hurdles of which the Minister spoke would be extremely high if my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar) were Secretary of State, as he will be soon.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: When the hon. Gentleman says that the hurdles are not very high, he should remember that the first hurdle is to secure the majority of parents in a school for this view. Are we to take it that he believes that there are large numbers of parents in schools in Scotland who will wish to vote for this principle? I do not believe that. If the hon. Gentleman describes that as a small hurdle, he must believe the opposite. Where is his evidence for that view?

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister keeps arguing that there is no great demand for this change, that this is simply a piece of enabling legislation and that it will not be required much. Have we spent months listening to rubbish from Conservative Members, wasting the time of Parliament, for a piece of legislation that is irrelevant and that, in the view of the Minister, will hardly ever be used? It beggars belief to hear that sort of rubbish from the Government Benches—[Interruption.] One does not wait for murder to be committed before trying to prevent it. That is why we are anxious to deal with this issue properly at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—I deliberately refer to him as my hon. Friend—talked about rural schools, as did a number of other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman took us on a trip through the Tay valley, on to Killiecrankie and Blair Atholl, and I was waiting, as he moved on, to hear the Uist tramping song. He seemed to think that the trouble with the legislation was that, if one of his local rural schools opted out, it would not be able to offer certain subjects such as Gaelic or specialist sports. If I have misrepresented him, he will correct me.

Mr. Bill Walker: My concern—my intervention gives me an opportunity to correct a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—was that the new clause, if accepted, could mean that, if one of my local schools decided to become self-governing, it could not continue to offer the kind of opportunities for selection that are now offered, for


example, for Gaelic. In other words, I was concerned about the effect that the new clause could have on schools in my constituency.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If rural schools have developed specialist interests in subjects and sports based on their locality, that will always be present.

Mr. Walker: Again, the hon. Gentleman either has not heard or has not been listening. I am concerned that schools that become self-governing, which are now offering specialist subjects, for which children travel long distances beyond what would be considered the catchment area, might be prevented from offering such subjects if the new clause were accepted.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that they would. However, the hon. Gentleman is again introducing a red herring. I do not believe that the new clause could do that technically. Kingussie high school, a rural school, offers shinty. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is not in his place. I do not believe that such things would be excluded on the basis of our new clause.
If the hon. Gentleman was honest in saying that he did not wish to reintroduce selection and that the only reason that he was opposing the new clause was that he thought that it was technically unsound—

Mr. Walker: I thought that I had made the position even clearer. I said that I had no wish to go back to the 11-plus, and I have not. I believe—I hope that my speech made this clear—that there is room for selection in specialist subjects for which the teachers have specialist aptitudes and abilities which they are offering now. I do not want that position to change.

Mr. Galbraith: The more that we debate this—this is the value of debate in the House—the clearer the positions of other hon. Members become. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman wishes to reintroduce selection, although he does not want to reintroduce the 11-plus.

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Galbraith: Well, not in the terms that we are talking about.

Mr. Walker: Selection already exists.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman keeps shouting from a sedentary position that selection exists now, but it does not. That is what we are worried about.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made it clear that he wanted to reintroduce selection. I believe that I am correct in attributing that view to him. That worries us. He also said that the Opposition are complacent about Scottish education and believe that there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are all aware that most things in our society could be improved; education certainly could. However, not on Second Reading, in Committee or tonight on Report have we heard exactly how the Bill will improve Scottish education.
We have to take the Minister's assertion and make an act of faith. We have to believe that, if a school is allowed to opt out, there is a de facto reason and some logic that somehow that school will be better. I cannot accept that. We need more and better assurances and some explanation, but they have been missing.
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood made several contributions in Committee and spoke again tonight. We are worried because he said that he wished to reintroduce selection based on academic criteria. I believe that I am correct—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I said that I thought that a strong case could be made for academic selection. I was not specifically calling for it in Scotland. I was simply saying that a strong case could be made, and I should be happy if it could be reintroduced in England and Wales.

Mr. Galbraith: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has said, "A strong case could be made." Is the hon. Gentleman simply making a debating point, because "a strong case could be made" either for or against? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not made his mind up either way, but I suspect that he believes in academic selection.
The other interesting thing that I enjoyed hearing from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood was that the whole purpose of the Bill—and the hon. Gentleman's solution to improve Scottish education—was for the pupils to start calling all teachers "Sir" or "Madam". Many educationists in Scotland will be grateful for that contribution.
Opposition Members oppose the Bill for many reasons, but mainly because it is about introducing selection into the education system by the back door. Many of us remember the 11-plus and the divisions that were created in schools and societies. We remember the mornings when the exam results were made public and the division in classrooms where half the pupils were to go to the senior secondary and other half to the junior secondary, which, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, was the equivalent of a secondary modern school. We do not wish to return to that.
The Minister says that that is not a problem because the sort of testing that he suggests reintroducing into Scottish education will not be used as a method of selection but that the results will be given only to the parents. Is the Minister trying to make us believe that, if a school opts out, he will not ask the parents what results the pupils got in the test? Are we to believe that, somehow, the results that are available from that test will be kept secret from the parents and that they will not be allowed to pass them on through the educational system? No—the results will be used, together with opting out, to damage the comprehensive system within Scottish education.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order, [3rd May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 265.

Division No. 253]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beith, A. J.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bell, Stuart


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blair, Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Boateng, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Beckett, Margaret
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)






Buckley, George J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Caborn, Richard
Leighton, Ron


Callaghan, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Litherland, Robert


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Livingstone, Ken


Canavan, Dennis
Livsey, Richard


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Cohen, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cousins, Jim
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dobson, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Maxton, John


Douglas, Dick
Meale, Alan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fatchett, Derek
Morley, Elliott


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fraser, John
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galbraith, Sam
Pike, Peter L.


Galloway, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Prescott, John


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


George, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Redmond, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Reid, Dr John


Gordon, Mildred
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rowlands, Ted


Grocott, Bruce
Ruddock, Joan


Hardy, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sedgemore, Brian


Henderson, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hinchliffe, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hood, Jimmy
Short, Clare


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sillars, Jim


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Spearing, Nigel


Illsley, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ingram, Adam
Steinberg, Gerry


Janner, Greville
Stott, Roger


Johnston, Sir Russell
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Straw, Jack


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lambie. David
Turner, Dennis





Vaz, Keith
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Wall, Pat
Wilson, Brian


Wallace, James
Winnick, David


Walley, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Frank Cook.


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Dykes, Hugh


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amos, Alan
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gill, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bellingham, Henry
Gregory, Conal


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, W.
Hanley, Jeremy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hannam, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Body, Sir Richard
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harris, David


Boswell, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hayes, Jerry


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayward, Robert


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Heddle, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brazier, Julian
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bright, Graham
Hill, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hind, Kenneth


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hordern, Sir Peter


Budgen, Nicholas
Howard, Michael


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butcher, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butler, Chris
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butterfill, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Cash, William
Irvine, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Irving, Charles


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Janman, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, David






Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Major, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Sir Charles
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Neale, Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wilshire, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, Sir David
Wolfson, Mark


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Tim



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN UNIVERSITIES, POLYTECHNICS AND COLLEGES

'.—(1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to

ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes (in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with—

(a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or
(b) the policy or objectives of that body.

(3) The governing body of every such establishment shall, with a view to facilitating the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (1) above in relation to that establishment, issue and keep up to date a code of practice setting out—

(a) the procedures to be followed by members, students and employees of the establishment in connection with the organisation—

(i) of meetings which are to be held on premises of the establishment and which fall within any class of meeting specified in the code; and
(ii) of other activities which are to take place on those premises and which fall within any class of activity so specified; and

(b) the conduct required of such persons in connection with any such meeting or activity;

and dealing with such other matters as the governing body consider appropriate.

(4) The governing body of every such establishment shall not impose a charge for security on the organisers of any meeting. Any charge for the use of premises shall be in accordance with the established practice of the establishment and shall not in any event be at such a level as to effectively preclude the proposed meeting taking place.
(5) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any such establishment shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable (including where appropriate the initiation of disciplinary measures) to secure that the requirements of the code of practice for that establishment, issued under subsection (3) above, are complied with.
(6) The establishments to which this section applies are—

(a) any university;
(b) any grant-maintained college;
(c) any college of further education; and
(d) any institution for the provision of further education managed by a company formed by virtue of section 60(1) of this Act.

(7) In this section—
governing body", in relation to any university, means the executive governing body which has responsibility for the management and administration of its revenue and property and the conduct of its affairs;
university" includes a university college and any college, or institution in the nature of a college, in a university.

(8) Where any of the establishments to which this section applies is maintained by an education authority or authorities or is substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from an education authority or authorities, the education authority or authorities maintaining or (as the case may be) assisting the establishment shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to be concerned in its government.
(9) Where a students' union occupies premises which are not premises of the establishment in connection with which the union is constituted, any reference in this section to the premises of the establishment shall be taken to include a reference to the premises occupied by the students' union.' —[Mr. Nicholas Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the clause is to insert into the Bill section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 but with one new and important subsection which says:
The governing body of every such establishment shall not impose a charge for security on the organisers of any meeting. Any charge for the use of premises shall be in accordance with


the established practice of the establishment and shall not in any event be at such a level as to effectively preclude the proposed meeting taking place.
10.15 pm
During questions to Scottish Office Ministers on 7 June, my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Amos) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked whether our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would consider extending section 43 to Scotland. He replied:
It was decided in 1986 not to extend to Scotland the provisions in the 1986 Act which became section 43 as there was little evidence in Scotland of the problems that prompted the legislation south of the border. Since then there has been very little evidence of disruption of free speech in universities or colleges in Scotland."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 209.]
An important matter of principle is involved. It is that freedom of speech that is enshrined in English and Welsh legislation should also be enshrined in Scottish legislation. I do not understand the Minister's attitude. Knowing his robust views, I cannot believe that he seriously expects the House to accept the principle of freedom of speech in England and Wales but not in Scotland.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that should a problem arise in a Scottish university to which those rules would apply, we would not be equipped to deal with it? Are we not denying Scottish students a fairly essential right?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Scottish Office is basically saying that, if a fire occurs, it will then take out an insurance policy. I have always believed that the insurance policy should come first. It is not right to suggest that there have not been problems in Scottish universities. Only last year in Aberdeen the South African consul was shouted down—

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scottish Members—and, indeed, most hon. Members—would abhor any intervention in the principle of freedom of speech in Scotland? We would be appalled if some Right-wing Fascists tried to prevent the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) speaking in a university. We want to prevent that happening, which is why we want the same legislation for Scotland as for England and Wales. During the passage of the Bill, Opposition Members continually asked for harmonisation between Scotland and England, and we cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Minister refused that.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, race relations legislation is equally applicable to Scotland and England. We want to prevent the shouting down of people in an attempt to stop them expressing their views. The Government appear to be prepared to sit back complacently because Scotland has not suffered quite the same outrages as England.

Mr. John Redwood: During debates on the community charge, many Scottish Members said that it was a great pity that Scotland had to be the first to experiment and that England would have it only after it had been proved successful. Do we not now have a marvellous opportunity to show even-handedness in that now, the 1986 Act has proved successful in England and Wales, it should be extended to Scotland?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right, but with one proviso, because a part of section 43 has not been successful.

Mr. John Marshall: Speaking as a former lecturer at Aberdeen university, I wish to ask my Welsh colleague whether he agrees that two things threaten Scotland's reputation—first, the sedentary interventions of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and, secondly, the attempts by individuals to deny freedom of speech in universities? Do not such attempts bring universities into disrepute? My hon. Friend's new clause seeks to safeguard the reputation of Scottish education, which used to be the highest in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right, but my new clause also seeks equality for Scotland with England and Wales. It would also help my hon. Friend the Minister because not so long ago he spoke at Stirling university and attempts were made to shout him down. Being of a robust nature, my hon. Friend managed to continue his speech despite the attempts of the Fascist left to prevent freedom of speech. That shows that there are problems in Scottish universities and it seems that the problems are likely to increase in future. It is important that there should be equality of opportunity and treatment between England, Wales and Scotland. However, Scottish Members have an opportunity to show the way forward to the Departments responsible for education in England and Wales to improve section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, because that section is not working at the moment.

Mr. John Bowis: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), should be listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). Until now, Scotland has always held its head high as one of the leaders in education in the United Kingdom. However, we anticipate a faint-hearted response on this point from the Minister. Should not the Government be considering the problems encountered by England and Wales under the present law and try to go further for Scotland instead of restricting the provision in Scotland to below that applying in England?

Mr. Bennett: I find it very difficult to understand the attitude of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this. It cannot be in line with what he really believes. He must have been captured by the civil servants in the Scottish Office. If only he could be a free man and speak his mind, there would be a robust approach.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is it not a great pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), present in the Chamber? He seems to have the backbone with regard to these matters. Can we not have some backbone in this issue?

Mr. Bennett: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is suitably chastened by the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and that he will take note of the strong views on this issue.
I want to give examples of what has happened in England and Wales since the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 received its Royal Assent. These examples will illustrate the problem which exists in the English and Welsh


legislation which we hope to correct and amend in the Bill on student loans later this year. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has a golden opportunity to lead the way and accept this new clause, which surmounts the problem which exists in England and Wales.

Sir Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman take an umbrella to the Sahara on the grounds that it might rain?

Mr. Bennett: Of course, there is always the chance that it might rain. I would certainly take some water there.

Mr. Bill Walker: For the information of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), I have been in the Sahara when it rained very heavily.

Mr. Bennett: Looking at the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), it appears that he should take an umbrella because he is obviously suffering from sunstroke and an umbrella could protect him from the sun. The Liberals were soaked in the rain last Thursday and they need an umbrella to protect them, if only to try to show that they are green in some way.
The Conservative Collegiate Forum, the new name given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to the Federation of Conservative Students, which confuses some of us who think it must have something to do with Army cadets in public schools, has examined 97 codes of practice in England and Wales. It considered 49 from universities, 29 from polytechnics and 19 from other places of higher education. Fifty-three of the codes throw on the student body the cost of stewarding the meeting and eight of them demand payments in advance or a deposit.

Mr. Tim Janman: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a priority that we should take action to uphold freedom of speech in Scotland. Does he agree that we should be incorporating section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in this Bill, but that that should be taken as a starting point to make the legislation more embracing in Scotland to prevent the problems that we have seen in England and Wales? The English and Welsh legislation should also be toughened.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has made a very good point which is the purpose of the new clause. I only regret that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about student unions, was not selected for debate. That new clause referred to students being cajoled into being members of student unions whether they wanted to or not which is something about which Conservative Members feel very strongly.
Eight of the codes of practice demand payments in advance or deposits. Those codes mean that, before a meeting can be held, sums of up to £500 must be paid in case the Left wing come along and disrupt the meeting. The onus is not on the Left, who will break up the meeting and cause the damage, but on the organisers. Large sums are demanded by some universities. Aston university, advised by the police that its security barriers would not be sufficient, asked for specially toughened steel barriers and demanded £372·83 from the Conservative students and a further £110 for extra security staff. The Conservative

students did not have that sort of money, and there was a grave danger that the meeting would have to be cancelled. Luckily, part of the charge was waived.

Mr. Michael Brown: How can speech be free if it costs £110?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why we object to the way in which the English and Welsh legislation has been working.
Nine codes of practice insist that any loss or damage should be made good not by those who caused it but by the organisers of the meeting. Four require the holders of the meeting to bear all or part of the cost of any extra insurance required. Another device used by at least 10 establishments is to limit the number of meetings at which a designated speaker is allowed to appear. Essex university demands six weeks' notice for a meeting. Details must include the name of the speaker, and if the speaker cancels for any reason within those six weeks, the authority can ban the meeting.
Twenty-seven codes of practice state that the meeting may be cancelled if it incites those attending to criminal acts. That is an all-embracing umbrella clause if ever I heard one. I note that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, who raised umbrellas, has now left the Chamber. It seems that any univeristy can say to any association, "I am sorry, but your meeting cannot take place because it might incite the audience to acts of criminal activity." How can anyone guarantee that a meeting will not lead to someone trying to disrupt it or to commit a criminal act? It is an open invitation to a university authority to ban anything it wishes.

Mr. Bob Dunn: If deposits must be paid, which can be lost in the event of trouble, is that not an open invitation to the Left to cause trouble so that those who organised the meeting will be penalised?

Mr. Bennett: That is a valid point. It is all the more valid coming from a former Under-Secretary of State of Education and Science, who speaks with great experience of the matter.
I am especially worried by the behaviour of the director of the polytechnic of north London. I gained my first degree at that polytechnic and was the founder and first chairman of its Conservative association in the troubled times of the early 1970s. To blow my own trumpet, I can say that, standing as the moderate candidate, I led the poll in a ballot for student union president against the Trotskyites. I know how insidious the Left's activities can be in polytechnics and universities and how Left-wing students can intimidate speakers and Conservative students. The director's behaviour is extremely reprehensible. He has demanded the right to vet the subject of the addresses by visiting speakers and to demand that they be changed. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford wished to speak at the north London polytechnic, as he did fairly recently when he was subject to much abuse, the director reserves the right to ask my right hon. Friend to change the subject of his address.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I fully share my hon. Friend's view that the students should not be asked to pay, but the universities fear that, if the students are not asked to pay, the money will have to come from the university's budget for providing education. The taxpayer


generally should pay. We do not tax people who have their houses burgled. The police should protect the freedom of speech at no cost to the universities.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a case that the cost of protecting free speech should be borne by the taxpayer generally. But if the student unions, which are usually the cause of the disruption and are usually controlled by the far Left, are seen to be organising the disruption, they should pay for it out of the student union budget, which is provided by the taxpayer.

Mr. John Marshall: One problem is that the principals of universities are far too pusillanimous. They should discipline those who behave in an unacademic way and send them down.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Bernard Levin made the same point in an excellent article in The Times on 1 June. University chancellors and polytechnic directors have been very weak in dealing with student union activists and troublemakers who disrupt meetings. They prefer to ignore and turn their backs on the problem. They are quite happy that disruption should occur, provided that the speakers affected are Conservative or Right-wing.
When Mr. Ray Honeyford was invited to speak at the north London polytechnic, its director felt it necessary to publish a leaflet at the polytechnic's, and therefore, at the taxpayers', expense inviting his students to attend alternative meetings that he organised. He defended his action in a letter to The Times recently, to which Mr. Philip Malcolm, national student director of the Conservative Collegiate Forum, responded asking whether the director had ever organised an alternative meeting to one addressed by a Left-wing, Fascist or Communist speaker. Of course he had not. The director of the north London polytechnic only organises alternative meetings to those of Conservative speakers, with whom he happens to disagree. I do not see it as part of the job of the polytechnic authorities to tell students, "We don't want you to listen to this dreadful man because you might be influenced by what he says."

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that, a week after my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) spoke, after a fashion, at north London polytechnic, I was invited by its Conservative student association to speak there. Accordingly, I wrote to the polytechnic's principal, Dr. Wagner, asking him to accompany me on the platform and to remain there for the duration of my speech. He refused to do so, presumably because he did not want to witness the abuse from his own students that I would doubtless receive and because he could not discipline them in his own college. He could not guarantee my safety or the freedom of speech that he was ostensibly allowing.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend draws attention to the kind of disgraceful behaviour that is exhibited. Although not all right hon. and hon. Members agree with the robust views of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on every occasion, I defend his right to

speak at any university or college in this country at which he is invited to speak and to express whatever views he likes, in however robust a manner he chooses. By doing so he upholds the principle of freedom of speech that all my right hon. and hon. Friends deem to be so important and which overrides all other considerations.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: One must be careful to distinguish—as my hon. Friend does, but he could easily be misinterpreted—between the great mass of university students who want quietly and decently to get on with their studies, and who are content to leave others to hold their own meetings and discussions in a proper and civilised manner, and the minority, whom we see everywhere, and who are mostly Red Fascists and people of that kind. As we know, Fascists are Left-wing, and there is little to distinguish between the National Front's economic policy and that of the Labour Left. We must be careful not to imply that students in Scotland or in any other part of the kingdom are in general of the same kind.
My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise that university authorities are often to blame for disruption. The authorities at the north London polytechnic knowingly employed a man who has a conviction for a serious terrorist offence and placed him in a position of trust among impressionable young people, which is a disgraceful way to behave. If my hon. Friend's new clause would do anything to militate against such conduct by those who are supposed to lead young people, he is well advised to pursue it.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful intervention, based on his great experience of public speaking at universities and colleges throughout the country.
I turn to the attitude of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

Mr. McFall: Is it not a fact that the Minister did not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition at Scottish Question Time? The present arrangements are working perfectly well. Hon. Members may not take my word for it, but they should take the Minister's word. On 20 October last year, when he visited Glasgow college of technology, there was something of a fracas; after the meeting, however, he said that the students were to be commended and that he would introduce no legislation. I suggest that some Conservative Members know nothing about it. They come into the Chamber for a debate on Scottish education and filibuster just for the sake of it.

Mr. Bennett: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got my hon. Friend's statement slightly wrong. For one thing, he did not preclude future legislation. What he said after that demonstration was that the vast majority of students would not wish to have anything to do with the minority who had caused it. I think that his remarks were indicative of the general Christian attitude that we have come to expect from him: he took a forgiving line.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I recently conducted a speaking tour of Scottish universities, and spoke at St. Andrews and Edinburgh. It was a very successful tour, and was not marked by the extremism that hon. Members have described.
Let me say a word in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Most students in Scotland are, in my experience, very keen to get on with


their studies and pass their exams; they are not interested in extremism. Those students have nothing to fear from the new clause. Nor, I believe, have the Civil Service, the Scottish Office and our own Front Benches—especially the Opposition. There can be no reason for opposing the new clause, and I warmly support it.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Are not a number of student unions in Scottish universities affiliated to the National Union of Students? Is it not also true that that union still operates a no-platform policy, and that there is therefore an ever-present threat that a minority faction from some university might try to impose such a policy? Is that not why it is so important that the new clause is put on the statute book?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. What concerns me is that, although there has not been the same level of disruption in Scottish universities—there have been problems at Aberdeen and Stirling—a number of issues have arisen in the past year that could lead to trouble. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I have just mentioned Stirling and Aberdeen. Hon. Members should open their ears.
We have an opportunity to introduce in Scottish legislation an insurance policy already contained in English and Welsh legislation, so that action can be taken, in the event of disruption, to prevent the problems that we have seen in England and Wales from spreading to Scotland. That seems admirable to me. The principle of free speech ought to be defended.

Mr. Bill Walker: I do not wish anyone to misunderstand. There is no doubt that in the past there have been problems at Scottish universities as serious as those that England has experienced. Those of us who have been speaking in Scotland for many decades know that there was a time when we were ashamed by activities that took place—even, in one instance, in the presence of the monarch. That should not be forgotten. I remind my hon. Friend that an umbrella may well be useful: even if it does not rain often, it does so occasionally, and when it does it can be pretty ghastly.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) now wishes to intervene.

Mr. David Davis: The hon. Member for Dumbarton raised the question whether there is a problem over freedom of speech in universities. When he and the Minister were at university, the "Red Fascists", as they were called by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), were very unsubtle: they shouted down psychologists, historians and—as we have heard—even the monarch. That was a very overt form of suppression of freedom of speech. The techniques described by my hon. Friend however, are much subtler and more difficult to detect. The Scottish Office seems to have enfeebled my hon. Friend the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Knowing him now and remembering him 10 years ago, I am quite sure that it has.
The fact that the Scottish Office says that there is no evidence implies that it has investigated the rules that apply in universities to each Conservative association and to each Socialist society and Liberal society and has checked whether they prevent controversial speakers from being able to speak. I hope that my hon. Friend will ask

the Minister to justify the statement made by his Department that there has been no suppression of freedom of speech in Scotland and that the Minister will tell us that a positive investigation has taken place. I also hope that he will not reject the new clause.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. If there has been a survey of Scottish institutions by the Scottish Office, I hope that it was a damned sight better than the one carried out by the Department of Education and Science into the National Union of Students, which wrote the answers for all the constituent unions to send back to the Department.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) about the subtle way in which some of the pressures are applied? This does not apply just to political societies—for example, to the policy against Jewish societies by some pro-PLO students. It applies also to the misuse of public funds to finance political societies extravagantly and others in a very discriminatory way that prevents them from offering platforms to visiting speakers. As a former union official at a Scottish university, I have had experience of that.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend also makes a valid point. When it referred to the amount of money that it spends on political activities, the National Union of Students interestingly described it as about 0·5 per cent., by which it meant the amount of money spent by Conservative associations and the Communist and Socialist societies. However, it did not mention that most student union officers spend most of their time on politicking, that most student union newspapers are full of Left-wing politics, that most student union meetings spend all their time on Left-wing politics and that between 60 and 70 per cent. of student union funds, paid for by the taxpayer, are spent on Left-wing politics up and down the country.

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made an interesting point about the change in style of the Fascist Left over the years. In the past it was a straightforward attack on those who wished to sing a different tune from that to which they were prepared to listen. Today, many of the vice-chancellors and principals give a lead because of their objection and their hostility to our philosophy. In institutions where vice-chancellors and principals have been prepared to back up freedom of speech, there has been less trouble than has occurred where vice-chancellors and principals have been prepared to give a lead to the trouble.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has made another valid point. He brings me back to the point that I was making a few minutes ago about the letter that all hon. Members have received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, dated 2 June. Page 1 of the letter says:
there is no evidence of any institutions placing a limit on the number of meetings that may be organised.
That is simply untrue.
There may be limitations imposed by virtue only of the unavailability"—
that is an interesting word to use; it is not in my English dictionary—
of suitable venues at any particular time.
Then it says:


With only one or two exceptions, there is no support for the proposal that student unions should be made responsible for meeting security or other costs.
What do we find in the survey by the Conservative Collegiate Forum? We find that 53 codes put an onus on the student bodies. The statements in that letter are untrue. The letter is misleading and covers up the fact that the vast majority of universities, colleges and polytechnics in this country are doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said that they would do when he spoke during the Second Reading debate of the Education (No. 2) Bill in 1986. They are finding ways of getting round the code. The purpose of my new clause is to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is there any reason why a student who, by reason of force or noise, denies freedom of speech to someone at or visiting a place of learning should remain a student?

Mr. Bennett: There is absolutely no reason whatsover for that and there is absolutely no reason why the Scottish Office should not accept the new clause, which seeks not only to extend the law that applies to England and Wales to Scotland but to improve it and to give Scotland a lead.

Mr. Leigh: Has my hon. Friend noticed that his characteristically able, but lengthy, speech has given rise to a considerable number of interventions from Conservative members who have shown an unprecedented degree of interest in these matters, which is matched only by an unprecedented lack of interest from Opposition Members? Should we not remember the wise words that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men should do nothing? If Scottish Office Ministers claim that there have been few incidents, they should recall that a lack of freedom anywhere diminishes all our freedom everywhere.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend quotes the words of Edmund Burke which are extremely valuable. They remind us that freedom is indivisible and that we must always defend free speech and not allow the Left to decide who should speak and who should not.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The hon. Gentleman probably does not know that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) went to Durham university and became the president of the student union there; but he was not elected: he was appointed by himself. Is that freedom?

Mr. Bennett: I find the hon. Gentleman's proposition so astounding that I must let my hon. Friend defend himself.

Mr. Leigh: Many things are thrown at one in this House, but that is complete and utter fabrication. I was elected president of the Durham Union Society in a free and popular vote in a secret ballot.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the debate has to end at 11 o'clock and the Opposition are still not certain whether the Minister intends to accept the new clause, are we to be permitted to make a speech opposing the new clause or is this an example of the free speech to which Conservative Members pretend to adhere?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair has no control over the amount of time taken by an hon. Member who is moving a motion. This is a Chamber where free speech is allowed and it would be a good idea if other voices from other parts of the Chamber could be heard.

Mr. Bennett: I cannot be accused of not giving way to hon. Members who wanted to intervene. I have certainly not restricted the free speech of Opposition Members. I have given way. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), but I want to conclude my speech and hear the Minister's response.

Mr. Michael Irvine: I had the honour to serve with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on the Standing Committee considering the Electricity Bill. At regular intervals during the sittings of that Committee, the hon. Member for Ashfield threatened various Conservative Members that he would take them outside. What is more, it is on the record. Is that not exactly the extravagant behaviour from which university vice-chancellors need to be protected when they are standing forth in the name of freedom? Is that not another example of how important it is that the new clause is accepted tonight?

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I never threatened anybody on that Committee. All I did was ask somebody to come outside so that I could have a word with him, and he happened to be the Minister.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I wish that I was in the same position.

Mr. Bennett: The deliberations of the Committee considering the Electricity Bill certainly sound more exciting than the debates in some of the Committees on which I have served. However, I wish to finish my speech.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, the new clause is also about another principle—the principle of the citizens of the United Kingdom. It is quite clear from her intervention that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) believes that the rights of freedom of expression of students in England and Wales should not be extended to Scotland. Does he agree that, as the Conservative and Unionist party, we must reject that proposition tonight?

Mr. Bennett: Absolutely.
What possible excuse will my hon. Friend the Minister give from his Scottish Office brief for not accepting the new clause? I am minded to push the new clause to a vote unless we get from him an assurance that, even if he is not prepared to accept it tonight because he has a brief, he will take it away and allow his real principles and philosophy and what he really believes in to overcome the Civil Service belief.
I finish by reminding my hon. Friend of what Voltaire said about freedom of speech. We have to defend people's views that we do not believe in and, even until death, defend their right to say it. I hope that my hon. Friend will support the new clause.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For about 45 minutes, including interruptions,


we have listened to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who moved this new clause, yet he has no intention of pushing it to a vote. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Perhaps it might help the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) if I were to respond to her at this point, but I inform my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that I know what it must have been like to be the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) during our deliberations in Committee. I do not think that I have experienced anything quite like this in the 150 hours or so in which we considered the Bill. There seems to be some strength of feeling on the matter among my hon. Friends. I appreciate my hon. Friend's motives in tabling the new clause. My right hon. and learned Friend has carefully considered whether legislation is necessary for Scotland. I could go on to read the remainder of my speaking note, but I get the distinct impression that my hon. Friends would not find its content palatable.
I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) that I questioned—

Mr. Douglas: The Minister should address the House.

Mr. Forsyth: I am addressing a point that was made in an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he may learn something about what is going on in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry asked what evidence there was for the view that had been expressed by the Scottish Office that there was no problem in Scotland. I asked the Conservative Collegiate Forum to provide me with some examples in Scotland, which it failed to do, apart from he examples that were mentioned by my hon. Friend. The basis of the view that was taken at the time of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986—that this was not a problem in Scotland and that, therefore, the law should not intervene—still stands.

Mr. Tebbit: It might help if my hon. Friend the Minister came immediately to the point of whether he is saying that this new clause would be effective if there were those problems but that he does not think that there are those problems, or whether he is saying that this is not an effective clause to guard against such incidents if they should arise. Would he be quite clear about what he is saying?

Mr. Forsyth: Yes, I am quite clear; I am saying both. Without getting into the merits of whether the backbone of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) is stronger than mine—my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) raised this point during the discussion—my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage is looking at the effectiveness of the provisions in the 1986 Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke said, there is considerable concern about the operation of those provisions.
Although I had intended to say to the House that there was no prospect of introducing this measure in Scotland, because there has not been a problem, I could go some way towards helping my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke if I were to give an undertaking that we will look at this matter again on a rather more relaxed timetable in the light of my hon. Friend's review of the

operation of the provisions in England. I am sure that the House would not think it sensible for us to proceed a t a breakneck pace without having an opportunity to consult and to take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry. There will be a United Kingdom legislative opportunity shortly to deal with the commitments that have been made in respect of student finance.

Dame Jill Knight: The powerful argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has occasioned an echo of support from the Tory Back Benches. We feel concerned that, while he made an excellent case, the Minister in response simply says that the answers cannot be given because they are unpalatable. I for one would have liked to hear those answers.

Mr. Forsyth: The answers are sound, but I do not think that they would meet the views that have been expressed. The argument is that, as there has been no problem in Scotland, it is not necessary to legislate. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) argued that higher education is organised on a United Kingdom basis and that guarantees of freedom of speech should apply on a United Kingdom basis. I am prepared to look at that argument, but only in the context of being certain that the provisions contained in the 1986 Act would be effective and would provide for the security about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) asked.

Mr. Tebbit: The easy and straightforward course would be for the Minister to accept the new clause; then he would have the leisurely progress of the legislation through the other place to consider the matter. During that time, if it was found not to be quite right, it could be amended. He has not advanced any argument so far to show how it would be harmful. He merely says that he hopes it will never be necessary. I do, too, but it would be jolly good to be in ahead of the problem. If we had had the foresight to have this type of legislation in England and Wales, we would not have had the problems we have there. He owes it to the decent students of this kingdom to legislate in this way, unless he has good reason to show that the proposed clause is defective or in some way would be offensive.

Mr. Forsyth: The bulk of the clause has applied in England and Wales and was embodied in the 1986 No. 2 Act. There is great unhappiness about it. I share the views that have been expressed about the imposition of charges on students who have attempted to run meetings, and that is one matter into which the Under-Secretary has looked. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke that I will look at the matter again in the light of the review which the Under-Secretary carried out into the operation of the Act and that we will consider whether the judgment that has been made by my right hon. Friend should apply in the future.

Mr. Dewar: As we have the unusual spectacle of the Minister at bay—a boy standing on a burning deck—I would inform him that my hon. Friends and I feel that he is right in his initial reaction that what is proposed is unnecessary—[Interruption.] We know a little more about student life at Scottish universities than does the right hon. Member for Chingford. I hope the Minister will not


consider us to be handing him a poisoned chalice when I tell him that he should hold to his present stand of principle and that if he does, he will have our full support.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I am surprised that he should regard that as a helpful intervention.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying and appreciate that he has thrown away his civil servants' brief, which is a considerable thing for a Minister to do. He is listening to what the House is saying on this issue. However, I am concerned about what my hon. Friend said about the timing and because my hon. Friend talked about "leisurely". Will my hon. Friend give us an undertaking that he will reconsider this matter, in conjunction with the English and Welsh Department of Education and Science, and that the review will take place within the next six to nine months and not within a "leisurely" timetable?

Mr. Forsyth: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that undertaking and on that basis I hope that he will not feel inclined to press his new clause to the vote.

Mr. John Carlisle: I believe that my hon. Friend should support the new clause because several of us have turned down invitations from Scottish universities because they do not offer the same so-called "protection" that is offered at English and Welsh universities. My hon. Friends and I who receive such invitations do not feel that we can accept them until we can go with the assurance that my hon. Friend and the Government are right behind us in terms of the provisions that apply in England and Wales.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall look at that as part of the review and at the time that is taken—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it your pleasure that the new clause be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put and negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

11 pm

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The deliberations on the Bill have, from time to time, been lively, but none more so than the discussions that we have just had on the last of the new clauses.
One interesting thing about the way in which the Opposition have chosen to oppose the legislation is that they have failed utterly to recognise that the part I provisions are permissive in nature. They simply set up an opportunity for the majority of parents to have the chance to run their schools in a way that meets their needs. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we are prepared to trust the parents and that the Opposition are not.
It has been suggested that this legislation is unwanted in Scotland, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) repeatedly pointed out in Committee, the Opposition have refused to state the number of schools in Scotland that they expect to opt for self-governing status. Indeed, the hysteria with which they have greeted part I suggests that they believe that there will be a significant number.
The effectiveness of the legislation, even before it reaches the statute book and before we reached Third Reading, was clear for all to see in the statements made by the secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland and by people such as the convenor of the education committee of Strathclyde, Malcolm Green. They are saying that the effect of the legislation will be that education authorities will have to take far more account of the wishes of parents and that education authorities will no longer simply be able to follow the view of education headquarters. In the revision of the planning of the delivery of education by authorities such as Strathclyde and others, one can see that even at this stage the legislation is having a salutary effect.

Mrs. Fyfe: When confronted with one of his children not wanting to eat his or her dinner, does the Minister open the child's mouth and shove the dinner down that child's throat; and if he does not behave like that with his children, will he explain why he is behaving like that towards the adult electorate of Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her somewhat indelicate analogy. The analogy of forcing things down people's throats is probably better applied to the kind of policies that are pursued by Strathclyde regional council in closing successful schools such as Paisley grammar school and in deciding that single-sex education is anachronistic and a choice that should not be available to parents.

Mrs. Fyfe: The Minister should answer my question.

Mr. Forsyth: I have answered the hon. Lady's question. No school will become self-governing unless the parents vote for it and unless the Secretary is convinced that they will be able to carry it through. Indeed, the Opposition seem to have been converted during our deliberations in Committee and elsewhere. I was rather struck by the statement that was made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) to the press today claiming that the

Labour party would repeal some of these provisions. He said that they would be swept away. When we were discussing the matter in Committee he said:
Some parts of the Bill might remain: some parts of it might be popular. It would be foolish for anyone to commit any Government of any political party to what they will do in two or three years' time."—[0fficial Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 May 1989; c. 1501.]
Yet the hon. Gentleman did precisely that today. When I questioned him about it earlier, he said that it was because of the election results in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman made his commitment in Committee on 18 May. On 19 May the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said on Scottish television:
We will sweep away for ever all the embittering experience of the last 10 years—the poll tax, the schools Bill which were introduced in the face and need and teeth of Scottish public opinion. I think we'll also have a very much stronger assembly".
And so on. So on 18 May the hon. Member for Fife, Central was saying that anyone who made such promises was foolish and on 19 May the hon. Member for Garscadden was making exactly such foolish promises.
The point about self-governing schools is that they break the local authority monopoly. [Interruption.] I do not think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is in a position to throw bricks in any direction. The hon. Gentleman will recall the Liberal leader of Strathclyde writing to me, pleading for the powers that are contained in the Bill in order to save Our Lady and Saint Francis school at the same time as the hon. Gentleman was denouncing the principle. When I asked him about the difference in policy between him and the Liberal leader of Strathclyde regional council, he explained that he was speaking on national policy and that the leader of the Liberal group on Strathclyde council was speaking on local matters.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Obviously the election results were better for us than I thought, as the Minister feels the need to attack us. As he well knows, the argument that we put forward is that the Secretary of State would not have needed to introduce any Bill if he had retained his power to review any proposed school closure. That was the power that we wanted. It is reasonable for a local councillor to try to ensure that a school is not closed when he is caught between a Government and a Labour party who will not listen to the local people.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. The school in question was a denominational school where the Secretary of State retains his power. The difficulty in this case was that the hierarchy did not wish to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. Therefore, self-governing status was the option that was available to the school.
Self-governing schools break the local authority monopoly, create an opportunity for change and have resulted in local authorities being more responsive to the demands and wishes of parents.
The Bill extends choice by the introduction of powers to set up technology academies. Is it not amazing that the Labour party in Strathclyde would rather have school buildings empty in the Gorbals than have brand new, high-tech schools available for the people who voted for them in the Glasgow, Central by-election? I hope that everyone in Glasgow is aware that a brand-new school


could be available and that the only education cut that has been made in Glasgow was the cutting out of a brand-new school because of the ideology and fear that dominate the Labour party.
One interesting thing about the progress of our discussions on the Bill is that the use of the word "Anglicisation" has almost disappeared. We do not hear about it any more. That is probably because we have had a succession of amendments from the hon. Member for Fife, Central desperately trying to bring the Bill into line with the legislation in England.
We have had a good example of the transformation of the views of the Opposition as they have had to argue their case against my hon. Friends in Committee. I pay tribute to the effective way in which my hon. Friends conducted themselves in Committee. They astonished even the Glasgow Herald which has found it necessary to say that it got it wrong as regards the performance of my hon. Friends. Perhaps the most remarkable conversion of all was the suggestion that the Bill should be amended to create a parental majority for parents on the board of management. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who was a member of the Committee that considered the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, as it then was, condemned the Government for having a parental majority. He talked about the tyranny of the parental majority. By the time that the Bill that is before us began to be considered in Committee, the hon. Gentleman was arguing for a parental majority. We were happy to oblige the Opposition by introducing provisions for such a majority on Report.

Mr. McAllion: Then why is the Minister criticising us?

Mr. Forsyth: I am merely surprised that a party that puts so much effort into telling the people of Scotland that a parental majority would be tyranny and that it would be wrong that we should seek to amend the Bill to introduce such a majority.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked his colleagues not even to vote against the provisions in the Bill that allow for the introduction of national testing. It seemed that the Opposition accepted the principle of testing but were worried about how it would appear in practice. I was surprised to read the article in today's edition of the Glasgow Herald in which the hon. Gentleman stated:
The Opposition need to form a triple alliance of parents, professionals and politicians. We must develop alternatives to the deeply damaging testing and teaching appraisal proposals contained in the new legislation.
If the testing proposals are so "deeply damaging", why did not the hon. Gentleman vote against them in Committee? He knows, as we all know, that parents want information about the performance of their children. They want that information communicated to them at home. In recognition of that, the Government have struck a popular blow.
In the same article—this is especially touching for those of us who were members of the Committee—the hon. Gentleman states:
There is a sense of being out-manoeuvred yet no real alternative has emerged.
The hon. Gentleman is there referring to the Labour party.
He continues:
The forces of progressive education in Scotland must not only recapture the agenda and the initiative from the

Government. We must once again dominate educational thinking in addition to an effective delivery of the service on the ground.
I have some advice for the hon. Gentleman: vote for the Bill's Third Reading and persuade the people of Scotland that the Opposition look to their interests and not to messages from the Educational Institute of Scotland. If he does that, he will make some progress in seeking to dominate the agenda.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: There are only 11 Conservative Members left in Scotland.

Mr. Forsyth: I was reading the words of the hon. Member for Fife, Central, who has admitted that the Government have set the agenda and have dominated it, and that the Labour party has lost it.
The Bill provides for the introduction of appraisal. What profession should not be subject to scrutiny of performance? What profession is more important than teaching? Opposition Members have found it difficult to work out their position on appraisal, and perhaps that is because the teaching unions are split on the issue. The EIS is against it but the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, the Professional Association of Teachers and the other unions are supporting it. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill told us in Committee that the PAT is a union that no responsible teacher should join because it was not prepared to advise its members to go on strike. That says much about the attitude of Labour Members.
The EIS is claiming to be the official opposition. Its leader boasted that that was a sign of how effective it had been. Even the Glasgow Herald endorsed that view in an editorial on 12 June. It stated:
If indeed the institute is the 'official' opposition, that says much for the tenacity and credibility of the union, its officials and members. But it doesn't say much for the performance of the Labour Party in Scotland.
Anyone who was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill would have made that observation. The hon. Member for Garscadden would have done himself more credit if instead of attacking my hon. Friends for their performance he had been in Committee arguing the Opposition's case.

Mr. Dewar: Like the Secretary of State!

Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend was a member of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman could have been there to argue his party's case. He was not, however, and his party lost.
The Bill also provides for a major extension of the parents' charter which the hon. Member for Fife, Central told us his party now supports. His party opposed it when we proposed it, just as it opposed school boards, which it now supports. We look forward to Labour telling the people of Scotland in a year's time that it supports self-governing schools.
We have also abolished section 88, which even the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities argued was anachronistic, but the Opposition have found it difficult to go along with that. We are liberating the employment of teachers through insistence on the advertising of all posts above principal, and the ending of ring-fencing around official appointments.
The Bill is a major reforming piece of legislation. Much of its provisions have not been discussed in Scotland. Much of it has been presented in terms of the Opposition's myths. It will strengthen the parents' voice, it will


strengthen accountability, it will extend choice, it will increase competition and it will raise standards, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. McLeish: We have heard a characteristic and highly personal speech from the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education. It is always a grand sight to see him get animated and excited. One of the ingredients that he tends to miss out in his perorations, however, is the fact that the Bill is universally despised in Scotland.
There was no educational argument in the Minister's speech. Rather we had a rich mix of personal animosity and the ideology that we have come to expect from him and his erstwhile colleagues who were recruited on to the Committee to do the job that they enjoy most—being destructive and counter-productive rather than having a sensible debate about education in Scotland.
It is remarkable that, despite suffering electoral casualties at every election in Scotland—we have a Tory MEP-free Scotland and there are only 10 Scottish Tory Members at Westminster—the one thing that the Government will not face is the view of Scottish electors as measured in district and regional council, general and European Parliament elections. I must ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I believe is beginning to tune into the fact that he faces a wipe-out of Conservative-held Scottish seats in 1991 or 1992, when he will get a grip on the continuing excesses of his Minister, who is projecting a form of education which is not liked.
The Secretary of State laughs, but why can he go to Wales and suggest there that there should be a triple alliance? He seems to have been converted to regional policies again. He does not argue their case in the Cabinet, though. He goes to Wales and suggests that Wales, the north and Scotland should unite as a triple alliance against the forces of Thatcherism to try to reinstate some sensible regional policy.
The Secretary of State has spoken about trying to put the Scottish scene back on a moderate footing. He has offered glasnost to COSLA. The most important thing that he can do tonight is to distance himself from the Bill and scrap it. At a stroke, that would help the Tories, possibly, to regain some lost ground in Scotland.
The Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State would benefit from re-reading the letter that was sent to them by the Church of Scotland on 5 June. Its general assembly passed a motion which was highly critical of the opting-out provisions. On 5 June, Mr. Alasdair Morton, from the Church of Scotland's department of education, sent a letter to the Under-Secretary of State—I know that he does not like this, but I hope that he will listen—which ran:
Accordingly in the name of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland I must request the Government to delete Part 1 of the above Bill and to depart from the matters it contains.
That is not an extreme group; it speaks on behalf of Scottish interests—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may be disparaging about the Church of Scotland, but it captured in a single sentence the feelings of Scots towards the Bill.
The Under-Secretary spent two or three sessions in Committee attacking the Church of Scotland because it had the temerity to involve itself in political debate. The hon. Gentleman felt that it should concern itself with

religious education and religious observance and keep out of politics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may applaud that, but the Church of Scotland behaved responsibly and suggested that the Bill be scrapped.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister visited Scotland and addressed the Perth conference on 12 May. She said about Scottish education:
Excellence has always been part of the Scottish tradition. And when it comes to the Glasgow Vets School, I'm with Malcolm—I support it all the way.
I am sure that she was referring to the Glasgow vets school, not to Malcolm. She continued:
In a competitive world, Scottish children deserve to be given the very best education and the very best training.
In her distinctive and characteristic style, she then said:
It's not enough to be just good enough. The Scots need to shine—to be way out in front. And under Conservative Government, they will have the freedom and opportunity to do just that.
That is a rich, rich hypocrisy in view of the Bill and its potential impact on Scottish education during the next two or three years.
The tragedy of the past three months and of tonight's debate is that the Bill is irrelevant to the real needs of Scottish education and to the challenges that Scotland will face in the 1990s with the single European market, the advent of technology and major demographic changes. What does Scotland get?—a Bill that will turn back the education clock 20, 30 or even 40 years. Few, if any, Scots want the Bill to reach the statute book.
I listened to the Minister giving a brief résumé of the Committee stage. He can ignore us and treat us with contempt—that is one of his characteristics—but can he continue to treat the people of Scotland with the same contempt? I said earlier that the Secretary of State appeared to be distancing himself from the excesses arid extremism of certain members of the Government, both in the United Kingdom generally and in Scotland. We need some stability in Scottish education.
The Bill, with its technology academies, opting out and testing measures, has the potential to tear Scottish education apart. In whose interests will that be? Will it be in the interests of the children, of the much-vaunted parents about whom the Minister constantly speaks, or of the future of education? The Bill is a miserable, mean and pathetic measure which has been dressed up under the guise of parental choice.
The Scottish people have had no real say in drawing up the Bill. At the last election, from Lord Goold through to senior Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, they all said that there should be opting out for England and Wales but not yet for Scotland. The Bill is not only tragic: it is a total betrayal of what Scotland has been led to expect.

Mr. Bill Walker: I would not wish the House to be misled any more than I wished the Committee to be misled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked central office in Edinburgh about that matter. He was given an answer that was not in accordance with what I understood the position to be or with the platform on which I stood at the last election. Hon. Members must ask themselves why, then, my result improved. I made my views about this legislation clear—I wanted it, I worked for it and I look forward to its implementation. I said that during 44 speeches in my constituency.

Mr. McLeish: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will want to put on the record what was actually said in the telephone calls between him, the Scottish Office and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
There is a betrayal here, and "betrayal" is one of the dirtiest words in politics. The Ministers here tonight have betrayed the people of Scotland. It was made quite clear in the general election campaign, even to the extent that the Government's principal spokesmen were paraded before The Scotsman, that the Government categorically denied that opting out would be on the agenda. However, that is history.
The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside had an excellent piece in this morning's edition of The Scotsman. He gave advice to which the Secretary of State for Scotland should listen. It is clear that, after the debacle of the European elections and the impact of Thatcherism in Scotland, where the Tories were completely wiped out, the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside has made some excellent observations. He has offered the Secretary of State and the Conservatives some ideas on the way forward. He stated that, in education, most people regarded the schools opt-out legislation as an irrelevance and continued to be offended by attitudes towards the universities. Those were courageous comments, and it is not for the Opposition to exploit them further.
There is compelling pressure on the Secretary of State for Scotland to listen to the Opposition, to the Scottish people and to the reasoned, rational sane voice of Scottish Conservative politics like that espoused by certain distinguished Tory Back Benchers. The Opposition are listening to those Tory Back Benchers. It is often asked: if that voice is good enough for the Opposition, why can it not be good enough for Conservative Members?
The Government parade choice and parental power. However, this Bill, like education legislation in England, centralises power in a way that we have not seen in Scottish education for many years. For "choice" we should read centralised control. The Minister referred to standards, while my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke about selection. The Bill is not about standards in Scottish education. Most of the Conservative Members who have spoken tonight know nothing about the standards in Scottish schools. All the evidence suggests that Scottish schools are doing extremely well, although they could be doing much better.
We should also be concerned about parents. The involvement of parents was clearly the brainwave of the Minister and of the Prime Minister. They must have asked themselves how they could sell unpalatable policies throughout the length and breadth of the country. They decided to hi-jack parents. For parents we should of course read privatisation.
Scots are not fools and very few Scots will be taken in by this parental nonsense. If the Government were serious about parental choice, they would give every parent the chance to be involved in schools instead of the rather selective situation which will ensue through the school boards, and the more selective approach through self-governing schools.
Earlier in the debate, the Minister chided me for suggesting that we should not be making statements about future education policy. We were buoyed up by last week's results. It is clear that politics is about mood and morale. We look forward with increasing confidence to the day

when we can rid the Scottish Office of its present incumbents and bring some sanity back to Scottish education.
The Minister may not like what was said about his precious assisted places scheme. That scheme may disappear on day one when the Opposition regain control of the Scottish Office, but much will have to be done in the rest of the week. The people of Scotland who are considering opting out, or technology academies, should be aware that the Opposition want to ensure that schools which opt out and any technology academies will be reintegrated into the education authority sector.
The reason is simple: both those so-called innovations have nothing to do with extending choice or creating diversity. They are all to do with destroying, step by step, the comprehensive system of education that has been built up by Conservatives, Labour, Scottish nationalists and Liberals during the past few years. When we take office, we shall have none of this nonsense. We shall give back to Scotland investment in education and policies to strengthen the comprehensive system. In the interim, we shall ensure that there is constructive resistance to such education policies.
It is a tragedy that a Bill which is so uniquely despised in Scotland has taken up so much time in the House. We had nearly two months in Committee. The Minister had the cheek to suggest that he had accepted 100 amendments in Committee. Without preaching Anglicisation, may I say that the sad fact is that this shabby Scottish Bill does not even have the safeguards that were included in the English Act. What the Secretary of State for Education and Science thought was good enough for English and Welsh people has not been accepted by the ideologue who is the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
This is a disappointing day for Scottish education; but morale in education is high. There will be a struggle against this legislation, and I assure those taking part that the Labour party will be in the forefront of the struggle. I urge my colleagues to vote against Third Reading. This Bill does not deserve it.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I need no advice from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on what I should do or where I may stand. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I am perfectly happy to answer for myself. Nothing that has happened in the past few days has given me cause to change my views on this issue or on any others. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge that I have consistently been saying the same things about education in Scotland for the past two years.
I am genuinely sad, as we come to the Third Reading of the Bill, that nothing has happened during our consideration of it to convince me that it has merits and should be supported. I still regard it as irrelevant. I do not believe that there is a serious demand for it in Scotland, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has repeatedly said, there is a demand in some areas. Those to whom I have talked have sensed some confusion over that demand. Is it being demanded for its own sake, or is it being demanded as a way out of problems such as a threatened closure? I acknowledge that


there is demand in some areas, but no one can contradict my assertion that there is no general demand for the Bill in Scotland.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have said to me several times, "If it is irrelevant, and if there is no general demand, why worry?" I worry because I believe that the Bill has deep implications for the structure and future development of education in Scotland. I ask them in return, "If it is irrelevant, as I believe it is, and if there is no evidence of great demand, why waste precious parliamentary time in this Session on a Bill which is unnecessary and which has created needless controversy?"
The Bill will change the structure of education in Scotland because it contains the seeds of division for the system generally and, worst of all, for those communities where schools may consider opting out. There is scope in the Bill for extreme groups from any background to exploit problems. The Bill is not in the line of succession of our Scottish educational tradition.
As I said at the outset, in recent years we have witnessed considerable changes in Scottish education—changes in the curriculum and in examinations, for example, and the introduction of school boards, which I supported once the original proposals had been moderated. The Government are imposing far too heavy a diet of change for no clear educational reason or advantage, and in doing that they are wrong. The Bill follows far too closely on the establishment of the school boards. Hon. Members will have addressed parent-teacher association meetings and other school meetings in their constituencies, and will know of the confusion in many people's minds about the establishment of the school boards, which I support, and the opting-out proposals, which follow so closely on it. The Government are doing a disservice to the successful establishment and operation of school boards by introducing the Bill so soon afterwards. The school boards should have been up and working before further change was contemplated.
I am one who believes in evolution, not revolution—as all good Conservatives should. Nowhere in our national life is evolution more important than in education. I am sad that the Government should have proceeded in this way, and equally sad to say that I still cannot support the Bill.

Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has made a speech of clarity and courage. We all know that it is not easy to speak out against one's party, and that must be especially true given the difficult position of the Conservative party in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman made a straightforward speech, and I agreed with almost everything that he said, although our impression is that the school boards are not proving as acceptable as some claim. But let us leave the school boards aside because they are not the main issue tonight.
The Minister has said that we are wrong to oppose the Bill because it is only permissive—people can choose to opt out or choose not to. We oppose the Bill because, as the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, there is no demand for it in Scotland. It is worth repeating that it is passing strange that, while the Government at least accept that more than 50 per cent. of parents should

have to vote for opting-out before it can take place, the Bill stems from a Government with only 25 per cent. of support in Scotland.
The Bill has been rejected throughout Scotland, and its rejection has been coupled with a lack of comprehension of the motivation behind it. People are asking why it is being introduced. As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside asked, why have we spent all this time putting the Bill through the House?
The Government say that the Bill is about increasing choice. The Scottish Consumer Council, on the other hand, argues:
Proposals to allow schools to 'opt-out' of education authority control are ill-timed and do not offer parents a significant extension of choice.
The Church of Scotland's education committee says:
The exercise of powers being proposed by the Bill are likely to be to the disadvantage of children in the sections of the community already suffering most deprivation.
The presbytery of Inverness education committee says
The committee is not convinced that the proposals in this paper … are to the best interests of Scottish Education.
The great majority of those involved in education seem to be saying that the Bill is not relevant and will not expand educational opportunity. The Minister has attacked the Educational Institute of Scotland; in Committee he did so often. Far be it from me to say that the EIS is a perfect organisation, but its reason for existence is to advance the quality of education and that is what it strives to do. It makes no sense for the Minister responsible for education in Scotland to spend so much time attacking the EIS rather than discussing matters with it and trying to move forward.
Many people feel that the Bill could represent a covert means or reintroducing selectivity, at least in certain areas. That was also in the mind of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and it was certainly a view felt by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council which
believes that comprehensive education might well be compromised by these proposals and that it would have been more honest to have an open and informed debate about its successes and failures, rather than allowing it to be eroded as a consequence of this proposed legislation.
Our view is that unnecessary legislation is being imposed on the people of Scotland by a minority. The Minister referred earlier to something being a travesty of democracy. This is a travesty of democracy in a country that is increasingly becoming the least democratic in the European Community.

Mr. Allan Stewart: With the greatest respect, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is not in the strongest position to talk about electoral percentages, following the recent election results. I shall not extend that argument because I would not wish to add any further insult to the injuries that were inflicted upon the Social and Liberal Democrats by the electorate.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on a masterly presentation of the Government's case throughout the long Committee stage. He was flexible where he felt that there was a case for changing the Government's position. For example, he was flexible on the issue of the chairmanship of the university courts and in providing for a second ballot before self-governing status could be achieved.
It gives me particular pleasure to speak on Third Reading. I had the pleasure last year of tabling a new


clause to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill which would have provided for self-governing schools. I moved that new clause not because of ideology or any particular philosophical convictions but because of representations from constituents. That is my answer to all the nonsense about manifesto commitments and what was said and what was not said. During my election campaign I did not make a manifesto commitment to support opting out, but that was before the decisions by Strathclyde regional council which persuaded me as a constituency Member to raise this matter in the House. I am delighted that the Bill is to reach the statute book.
In Committee, we heard an enormous amount of nonsense about what are described as Scotland's educational traditions. In the Glasgow Herald this morning, we read about what the Labour party believes Scottish educational traditions to be all about. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has described Scottish education in this way:
Before 1979 Education was used by successive Governments in an attempt to engineer a more egalitarian society.
That is the kind of Scottish educational tradition in which the Labour party believes, and it should be rejected comprehensively by the Government.
We heard also that the concept of technology academies is alien to Scotland's educational traditions. However, one of the proposed sites for a technology academy agreed by the leader of Strathclyde council and by the chairman of its education committee is Allan Glens. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Allan Glens knows that it was always envisaged as the location of a technology academy.
There has been much discussion about the number of schools that may opt for self-governing status. I may tell my hon. Friend the Minister that he has already won, even before a single school chooses to be self governing, because he has changed the way in which education authorities react to parents' wishes. That is what the Bill is all about.
I have referred, at excessive length in the view of Opposition Members, to the Neilston case and to others I know about. There is no doubt that when Scotland's education leaders take decisions in future, they will be aware of the importance of being responsive to parents, because parents will have the additional choice of opting for self-governing status. That is the key message that goes out from the House to the parents of Scotland.
The Opposition's performance on the Bill has been subject to a certain amount of press comment, and I do not wish to deepen their wounds. However, by far the greatest tribute, if that is the right word, to their lack of performance was that of the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, who refers to the EIS providing Scotland's official opposition to the Bill. What does that say about the role played by the Labour party in Scotland? The Glasgow Herald article, commenting on Mr. Jim Martin, the EIS's new general secretary, stated:
He has been impressive, partly because he has usurped the political role of the Opposition.
In his surprisingly honest article in the Glasgow Herald, the hon. Member for Fife, Central writes:
There is a sense of being outmanoeuvred, yet no real alternative has emerged.

There can be no better description of the Opposition's performance during the passage of the Bill. That is their epitaph, and they wrote it themselves.

Mrs. Fyfe: When the Scottish public realise tomorrow morning that about 50 Conservative Members wasted a whole hour of the precious little time left for debate to urge freedom for Conservative students, the National Front, contra generals, and the like, and then revealed, by not pressing new clause 12, that they really wanted to store up their views for a future debate, that public will be bitterly angry.
In debates lasting seven hours, no opportunity has been given to debate the needs of adult learners attending schools or colleges of further education, student rectors, Gaelic speakers, trade union rights, negotiating machinery, and the low wages of school workers. The subject of further education received only a brief mention on Second Reading and in Committee, and none at all tonight. Numerous other topics relating to the Bill—it would take too long to mention them all—have not been aired tonight, because Conservative Members thought that it would be more fun to create a diversion for an hour. That is how seriously they treat Scottish legislation, and that is why they are treated with such contempt by the Scottish electorate.
During the recent by-election I spoke at several public meetings on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson). With my colleagues I knocked on doors every day for three weeks, and not once did I find anyone who was in favour of the Bill. The local electorate also knew that Allan Glen's school was in Townhead and not in the Gorbals, thereby demonstrating the superiority of their knowledge of education in Glasgow to that of the Minister. Not only did no one ask anything about the Bill, but when I raised it at public meetings not a single member of the audience professed to be in favour of it.
Hon. Members have talked of testing. It is clear that the Tories have failed every electoral test in Scotland, again and again. I remind them that someone with more wisdom than Robert the Bruce said, "If you try, try, try again and still do not succeed, quit: no need to be a damn fool about it!"

Mr. McFall: It gives me great pleasure to speak against the Bill, whose hallmark has been a complete lack of consultation with teachers, education managers or parents in Scotland. There has been more consultation with English Back Benchers than with anyone in Scotland.
For 35 minutes the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) wittered on, encouraging interventions: yet Scottish Members who were on the Committee, scrutinising the legislation line by line, can get in only two or three minutes at the end of the night. There is something wrong with the system: that is why the frustrations are building up in Scotland, and the Government are so blind that they cannot even see it. The conduct of this Bill shows how out of touch they are with Scottish education, and the narrowness of their view as put forward by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Is it the view of the Secretary of State? My interpretation is that Scottish education at present is dictated by a leak in the Glasgow


Herald and by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has more power now than he has ever had: he is the Dirty Harry of Scottish politics. Whenever he says anything, it is put forward as education legislation.
I said at the outset of the proceedings on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill 1988 that a two-stage process was involved. I was departing from the view of my Front Bench, which had stated that the Bill represented a climbdown by the Government: my view was that the Bill had been set up to level the playing field between Scotland and England so that the legislation available to England could be introduced. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in this very Chamber that the Secretary of State for Education and Science was frit, because he would not go further and completely privatise English education. It was the real Parliamentary Under-Secretary who stood up then, but tonight, in the freedom of speech debate, we did not see him. But we see him in Scotland, however, each and every day, as do the electorate: we see him for all that he is not worth.
Many aspects of the Bill are reprehensible—indeed, every aspect, not least that of academic selection. On Monday 6 March the Secretary of State said that the Bill was not about selectivity. If I were not in the Chamber, I would describe that as a gross mendacity; I am in the Chamber, however, so I shall not. Writ large in the Bill is that it is about academic selection: it is about taking Scottish education back 100 years, and putting it in a Victorian political time warp in which the minority will be satisfied and the majority rejected. The Bill will destroy public education. Some say that it will Anglicise education in Scotland. That is nonsense. It only gives succour to the Scottish National party and others. [Interruption.] I am quite happy to say that.

Mr. Salmond: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Educational Institute of Scotland that said that the Bill would Anglicise Scottish education.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. As a consequence I went to the Educational Institute of Scotland's offices in Edinburgh and told them where it had gone wrong. It cannot be said too often that the Bill is about the destruction of public education in Scotland. It will loosen the links between local education authorities and the electorate. The Under-Secretary of State is loosening the links because for many years Labour-controlled local education authorities have been too successful. This is a naked political attempt to make a breach between electorates and councillors. The Under-Secretary of State knows that. I have asked him about it two or three times and each time he has smiled or smirked at me.
The Minister and the Conservative party in Scotland are ideologues. They have both public and private aspirations. The public aspiration is that the Bill will provide greater choice and freedom. The private aspiration was revealed when the Under-Secretary of State lowered his guard. It is about greed—about cheque-book education. At a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh the Under-Secretary of State said that for him education was about people using their cheque books in the way that they want. Education, for him, is a rejection of all that has been good in Scottish education during the last 100 years—an education system which has provided choice and diversity.
The Conservative party has not briefed its candidates or its officers in Scotland. I was on a public platform with a certain Michael Hirst, who used to be a Member of Parliament, but he was rejected by the electors in Strathkelvin and Bearsden. He said that the electorate would be able to get rid of individuals who do not come up to the mark as school board members or officers after four years. But four years is far too long. Scottish education will be destroyed within one or two years. The Minister was clever enough to see that, because he wants to destroy it within a year or two.
The evolution of education in Scotland during the last 100 years has been a painful process. We stand for an egalitarian system and for equality of opportunity for boys and girls. That is why most of the Scottish electorate are behind us. That is why the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) are behind us. That is why 40 per cent. of Scottish Tory Back Benchers are against the Bill. They are listening to their constituents. They are not listening, as is the Under-Secretary of State, to the No Turning Back group.

Mr. McAllion: Will my hon. Friend comment on what was said by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)—that, like all decent Scottish Tories, he believed in evolution rather than revolution? Yet in Committee on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill the Minister boasted that he was a revolutionary. Might that not explain the very bad results for the Conservative party last Thursday?

Mr. McFall: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside remarked that the legislation has appeared out of the blue. It is on record in Hansard that during the last general election in 1987 the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside phoned Conservative Central Office in Edinburgh and asked, "Is opting-out on the Tory agenda for this election?" He was told loud and clear, "No, there is no such thing as opting-out coming on to the agenda so you can be reassured and you can tell your electorate that we have no such thing on the agenda." But the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside did not consider the hon. Member for Eastwood or the Prime Minister's Private Office—

It being Twelve o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [3rd May] and the Resolution this day to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 191.

Division No. 254]
[12 midnight


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Benyon, W.


Allason, Rupert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amos, Alan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Batiste, Spencer
Bowis, John






Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Jackson, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Janman, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Bright, Graham
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burns, Simon
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Burt, Alistair
Key, Robert


Butcher, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Butler, Chris
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butterfill, John
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carrington, Matthew
Knox, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cash, William
Lang, Ian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Latham, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lawrence, Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chope, Christopher
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Churchill, Mr
Lightbown, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lilley, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Conway, Derek
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Cope, Rt Hon John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Cormack, Patrick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Couchman, James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Cran, James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mans, Keith


Curry, David
Maples, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marland, Paul


Day, Stephen
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dicks, Terry
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dorrell, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael


Dover, Den
Maude, Hon Francis


Dunn, Bob
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Miller, Sir Hal


Favell, Tony
Mills, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Sir David


Freeman, Roger
Moate, Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hanley, Jeremy
Neale, Gerrard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Christopher
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Heddle, John
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David


Hill, James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hind, Kenneth
Rathbone, Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Redwood, John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Renton, Tim


Howard, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rost, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Irvine, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)





Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Trippier, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stokes, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thornton, Malcolm



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. David Maclean and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Tredinnick, David



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Doran, Frank


Alton, David
Douglas, Dick


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Eadie, Alexander


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eastham, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Battle, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beckett, Margaret
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beith, A. J.
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Foster, Derek


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Boyes, Roland
Galbraith, Sam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galloway, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buckley, George J.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Caborn, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Doug


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Illsley, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Ingram, Adam


Dewar, Donald
Janner, Greville






Johnston, Sir Russell
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles
Redmond, Martin


Kirkwood, Archy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lambie, David
Reid, Dr John


Leadbitter, Ted
Richardson, Jo


Leighton, Ron
Robertson, George


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Eddie
Ruddock, Joan


McAllion, John
Salmond, Alex


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Sillars, Jim


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Maxton, John
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wall, Pat


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliott
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Nellist, Dave
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Prescott, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Immigration

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise what I regard as a most serious matter. A document prepared by the head of the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office has been leaked. By arranging an early morning debate on DNA and immigration rule changes, the Government are, according to the leaked Home Office report, seeking to avoid
two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession".
Although in his statement last Wednesday the Home Secretary implied that no decision had been taken about the funding of a centrally organised DNA scheme, the document also makes it clear that the Government have made a decision about how they intend to fund a centrally organised DNA scheme. They will do so by a flat-rate increase across all the entry clearance applications. The document also makes it clear that the Government do not intend to allow the House of Commons—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order and I must respond to it. I hope that the House will understand that, but I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that a point of order has to be addressed to the Chair, to be within the Chair's responsibility and to be something that the Chair can answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order immediately.

Mr. Madden: I am sure that, as the guardian of Back Benchers' rights, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be concerned that senior Government officials have been advising the Home Secretary and other Ministers, with the knowledge of the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, that this House should be denied the opportunity of discussing either the principle or the detail of how entry clearance fees are to be increased to pay for a centrally organised DNA scheme.
Lastly, the document also makes it clear that a controversial DNA announcement with the immigration—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. What has this to do with the Chair? [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a point which should be made in the debate, the time of which he is now usurping. If he is wise, he may catch my eye. I suggest that he raises his points during the debate.

Mr. Madden: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The document makes it clear that the Government's intention in combining a debate on DNA with the immigration rule change is to divert attention from the fact that the Government have no new provisions or promises to make to the people of Hong Kong.
In conclusion—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair must, of course, be open and ready to listen to points of order, and I am tolerant. However, the hon. Gentleman is now abusing the Chair and this House. I ask him to come immediately to his point of order, which must be a matter for the Chair, and something that I can answer.

Mr. Madden: Indeed. I therefore ask that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, urgently allow the Patronage Secretary,


who is in his place, to make it clear that, in view of the revelations made in this document, the Government will do what they should have done in the first place, which is to make a statement about the DNA testing scheme and provide a debate at an earlier hour than this to enable the House to debate the scheme. The Government should abandon this debate on immigration changes and provide another debate, but at an earlier hour.
That is my request and in the interests of democracy, of Back Benchers and of the general public, having been found out, the Government should now—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters which must be raised in debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order? I have already dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).

Mr. Dalyell: It is a fresh point of order. It concerns the abuse of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) showed me the document, which is signed by a senior civil servant. The point of order for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is this. Is it right that a senior civil servant, in this case Mr. Stadlen, should produce documents that go into detail about how the House of Commons should be handled? No one quarrels with him producing documents about the substance of the issue, but surely the handling of the House of Commons is not a matter for senior civil servants. It is a matter for the Chair.
In these circumstances, may I make a suggestion, Madam Deputy Speaker? The hour is late. These documents are a disgrace. I suggest that you ask that the document be put before Mr. Speaker and that Mr. Speaker make a ruling at 3.30 pm tomorrow on the propriety towards the House of Commons of this kind of document being produced by a senior civil servant. Some of us think that it is entirely improper.

Madam Deputy Speaker: These are matters that should be properly raised in debate. I can assure the hon. Member that Mr. Speaker will certainly read the points of order in the Official Report.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 388), which was laid before this House on 14th June, be disapproved.
The rules are a reflection of the Government's attitude towards a large number of citizens in this country. They further restrict the ability of people from selected countries to enter the United Kingdom. Sex discrimination persists in the case of female students. No changes are proposed that would facilitate family reunion. Double standards and double-talk are applied throughout the rules and the explanatory memorandum issued by the Home Office. Indeed, the whole thing is summed up by the ridiculous hour at which the House is being invited to discuss this crucial matter—in the early hours of the morning.
The mind of the Government is revealed in the internal memorandum that has already been referred to by my hon. Friends. That memorandum, which has been made available to us, should also have been published alongside the Home Office rules, because it makes it clear what the Government are really about. The rules and the explanatory memorandum are in many ways grossly misleading. I shall refer to the internal memorandum, because it makes clear a number of points of which the House and the public should be aware.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he withdraws his remark about the ridiculous hour? These new immigration rules were laid last week. They were prayed against by the Opposition, as is the Opposition's right. The debate could have taken place any time within the next 40 days but was purposely arranged, at the request of the Opposition, at an early time so that it could take place before the imposition of visas on Turkey this coming Friday. That is why the debate is taking place today.

Mr. Darling: With respect, I took the opportunity of consulting the Opposition Whips to find out exactly what happened. I would not have made my remarks without first checking the position. It is not the case that the Opposition said that they would accept a debate at this ridiculous hour of the morning. I understand that it was put to the Opposition Whips that we might use Opposition time, but this is Government business and ought to be discussed in Government time. Indeed, the memorandum that has been referred to makes it clear that the Government were keen that there should be a debate earlier than the imposition of visas on Turkey simply to deflect the otherwise understandable opposition if there had been no debate.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Darling: I will give way once more on the point, but I do not think that the House wishes to be detained on this argument when the substance of the rules is far more important.

Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman please accept that we were willing to have the debate yesterday at a reasonable hour? It was at the insistence of the Opposition that it is taking place at an unreasonable hour tonight. Why is it this week rather than next week or the week after? It is because the Opposition wanted to have the debate before the imposition of visas on Turkey this Friday.

Mr. Darling: The Minister should know that the Government regulate the business timetable. If the Government had wanted to discuss Government business yesterday, they could have done so. It is disgraceful that they did not want to do so.
The internal Home Office memorandum makes clear what is in the Government's mind. When it refers to the merits of the immigration rules, it refers also to problems facing the Government about an announcement on the future arrangements for citizens within Hong Kong. It talks about the timing of the announcement of the immigration rules. The postponement of tonight's debate was discussed within the Home Office team. The document states:
postponement would arouse expectations which we cannot at this stage be sure of meeting, leading to possible


presentational problems later on. Proceeding with the rules now, by contrast, enables us to say that they have been in the pipe line for some time and are being introduced without prejudice.
It observes—how accurate this is—that new rules
and a potentially controversial DNA announcement, are quite a handful without the Hong Kong dimension." It is no wonder that the Government are trying to roll into the one debate the question of DNA and immigration rules.
The document continues:
The Home Secretary will wish to consider how far he should volunteer to break surface more publicly on Hong Kong: should it be mentioned in the arranged Rules PQ, the Press Notice and the letter to Mr. Darling?
It was not mentioned in the letter sent to me. We wait to see when it will be mentioned.
The attention that the public have focused on Hong Kong, quite understandably, demonstrates the problems faced by many other people. The Times thundered:
People from Hong Kong should be admitted to this country as a matter of honour.
What about the British men and women who wish to be united with their children or elderly parents, or those who are refused leave to be joined by their spouses because of the primary purpose rule? We read recently of a blatant attempt by the Government to influence the immigration appeals tribunal system against granting admission. The people to whom I have referred want unity with their families like all other citizens. When we consider matters of honour, we should consider those people.

Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: I shall not give way now. I have been delayed, and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Janman: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has made it clear that he is not giving way now.

Mr. Darling: We have responsibilities also to the east African Asian voucher holders. The Government say that they want to be flexible about Hong Kong. What is to happen? The internal memorandum states:
As agreed, however, we have set aside for the time being the intention to increase the minimum financial resources required of business men and persons of independent means because of the potential effect that it might have on Hong Kong.
Note the passage
set aside for the time being".
Does that mean that index-linked compassion is to be limited to Hong Kong? Perhaps it means that the limits are to be raised, but at a less sensitive time—for example, when Parliament has risen for the summer recess. Why is it that the Government are contemplating allowing rich people to buy a place in Britain when the great majority will not have that sort of money, and will apparently be excluded? That solution for the elite is no solution.

Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman has implied that the Government wish to allow only rich people to leave Hong Kong to come to Britain. Will he tell the House whether the Labour party believes that no one should be allowed in or that everybody should be allowed in?

Mr. Darling: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. We think that it is thoroughly offensive that a rule should be made for those who are rich, who have assets of more than £150,000, that is different from the rules that will apply to others. The Labour party's position on Hong Kong is clear. We have said that we do not feel able to make promises that we would not be able to fulfil. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made that clear time and time again.
The double standards to which I have referred—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: No, I shall not.
The double standards—

Mr. Renton: I must take up what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In the Labour party's policy review document, which was published a few weeks ago, the following statement appears:
We shall hold discussions with the Governments of Malaysia and Hong Kong with the object of providing them with an effective Nationality with the right of abode.
How does that fit in with the hon. Gentleman's remarks?

Mr. Darling: The policy review document refers to the 10,000 people, in Hong Kong, in particular, who have no nationality whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] It does say that. With respect, as I am one of the authors, I know what it says. With due respect, the Minister is trying to muddy the water. What he says has nothing to do with the point at issue.
The double standards that persist throughout the rules are nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the Government's attitude towards the provision of DNA testing. The Government had an opportunity to end the injustices that have been suffered by many people who have been wrongly refused leave to join their families. The Government, instead of abolishing the arbitrary, and frequently wrong, decision-making process based on subjective tests, have elected to allow DNA testing only after the same tests are applied and the entry clearance officer is still not satisfied that relationship exists. As a result, applicants will still have to go through bureaucratic, time-consuming and expensive interviews and be faced with the test if the entry clearance officer is not satisfied. The Government had an opportunity to do away with that red tape and those bureaucratic controls and to introduce a simple test that would prove, once and for all, and quickly, whether people were related.
In this statement, the Government imply that they have not yet reached a decision on costs, yet it is clear from the Home Office memorandum that that is not the case. The Government say in their internal memorandum that the statement
does not indicate how the scheme will be financed, beyond reiterating that the cost will not be met by the taxpayer. The intention is to make a separate announcement on the funding arrangements shortly before the scheme comes into effect, to avoid a rush of applications aimed at beating the associated increase in settlement fee.
In other words, it is abundantly clear that the Government have already decided to increase settlement fees and that a statement will be made at some quiet time, perhaps during the parliamentary recess.
Will the Minister tell us what he proposes with regard to cost? We have a right to know what is being proposed. The Government know. If the Minister has any respect for the House, he will tell us what the arrangement is to be.
It is no better for applicants who, it now transpires, were wrongly refused permission to come to Britain. The Government have said that they are prepared to consider their cases provided that they pass several subjective hurdles that have been erected in their way. Again the memorandum makes it abundantly clear how limited the Government's compassion is to be. It says:
we are looking for compassionate features which distinguish the particular case from the generality of average reapplicants. It would be crucial to hold this line to ensure that the concession remains the exception rather than the norm in cases involving overage reapplicants.
In other words, most applicants are effectively being told, "Don't bother. You need not apply because we will not exercise any compassion." These are people who have been wrongly refused as a result of the process that we have set up. They have been denied the right to come and live with their families. If it were happening to white people or anyone else, it would not be tolerated. The Government say one thing in public and another in private.
The double standards that are employed to impose restrictions on people who want to study in the United Kingdom illustrate the point. Under the proposed changes to the immigration rules, visa nationals cannot switch from visitor to student status. Again the memorandum makes interesting reading. It says:
the changes on admission for study are directed at bogus students, mainly from West Africa.
How on earth can any rational person make such a generalisation? Where is the evidence? Why can a United States visitor decide to study in the United Kingdom when a Nigerian national may not, no matter how powerful his or her case is? Are they not two individuals whose cases ought to be considered on merit rather than on their race? Has a United States visitor never abused the rules?
The same double standards are applied to the visa changes. Visas are now to be imposed against Haiti because, we are told, it is the Government's policy to harmonise visa restrictions in the European Community. Since when? No public announcement has ever been made about it. We know about it because, thanks to some helpful source, we know that the Government have discussed, in secret, with our EC partners the harmonisation of procedures and the erection of a ring fence around Europe. Yet there has been no public announcement; private discussions are the order of the day.
Which country is next? Will it be Jamaica? Jamaican nationals are now experiencing the same problems as were experienced by those countries that now need visas, with increasing numbers of people being refused leave to come to this country. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is to be Jamaica. The Government should think about the hardship caused by visas to those who wish to visit this country for a wedding or a funeral, but are told to come back and reapply at some future date. That is not an option for most people.
Turkey is to be added to the countries requiring visas. What will happen to the Kurdish refugees who are leaving Turkey in growing numbers? The Government look on refugees as a problem, but if they stop them coming to this

country they will think that there is no longer a problem. Is it really the case that a man in fear of his life is expected to go to the British embassy in Turkey and queue for a visa in the full view of those he fears? That is not an option, and the Government know it.
The rules are discriminatory and riddled with double standards. The memorandum should leave no one in any doubt that the Government are prepared to treat many of our citizens in a second-class way. It shows that the Government have no scruples. A cynical attempt has been made to mislead the public and hon. Members. To the Government the rules are a matter of presentation, but to parents separated from their children and to husbands separated from their wives it is a matter of decency. That is why we will oppose them in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Tim Janman: I hope to keep my comments brief because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the rule changes, especially that which will prevent people from coming to this country on the false basis of a genuine short-term visit and then switching status to become students on temporary courses. They do one course, complete that, move to another, complete that and so on until they have been here for seven years, after which they can remain permanently. That has happened with large numbers of people. It is morally illegal immigration on a technically legal basis. My hon. Friend is right to introduce changes to close that loophole.
The point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the changes being applied to west Africans but not to Americans was ludicrous. We do not have vast numbers of Americans entering this country on a false basis to secure permanent residency. The whole point of this legislative change is to direct it at where the problem lies—people from west Africa, not from America.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the introduction of visa requirements for Turkish nationals. Many Conservative Members are well aware of the problem of illegal immigration of Turkish nationals. However what will my hon. Friend do in the next decade if Turkey's application to join the European Community is accepted? That would make it difficult to prevent the influx of unrequired, unwanted and unneeded immigration from Turkey that could ensue.
My hon. Friend is also right to make changes in DNA testing. That testing is vital to establish that there is a proper and bona fide relationship between the person wishing to come to this country and the rest of the family who are already here. I cannot for the life of me understand why that testing is not mandatory. It is the only real and genuine way of firmly and scientifically establishing the evidence necessary to prove that there is a bona fide relationship. I cannot understand why it is carried out on a voluntary basis.
As we are debating immigration rule changes, it is appropriate that I should state in this debate that the vast majority of the British people see no need for immigration rule changes vis-à-vis Hong Kong. The British Government's first duty is to the people of this country, not to the people of Hong Kong.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: When I went to Hong Kong a few years ago, I asked vast numbers of people whether they thought of themselves as Chinese or British. They told me


with an overwhelming voice that they wished to be Chinese. They wished to follow a Chinese culture, be part of the Chinese community and be part of China. Would it not be ludicrous in those circumstances for the Government to take into this country 3·2 million people who have no wish to be British, no wish to abide by British customs and no wish to be part of our country?

Mr. Janman: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) has made is absolutely right. He reinforces the point that I was making. The danger of making any immigration rule change to accommodate more than 3 million people in Hong Kong is that we might write a blank cheque. If that change were made in the belief that only a few thousand would take it up, we would be powerless in law to prevent the other hundreds of thousands or millions from taking it up if they so wished. The Government would be extremely foolish to write that blank cheque and it seems to be clear from comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that that blank cheque will not be written, and that is absolutely right.

Mr. John Carlisle: The siren voices from the Opposition Benches about the continuance of Labour's open-door policy—which seems now to extend to 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese—will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention. Does he agree that if such a policy were followed the British Government would have an equal duty to tell the 800,000 or so white South Africans that they also have similar rights of abode in this country? With regard to exemptions, is it not interesting to note that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) refused to take an intervention asking him whether Labour would impose visas on South Africans? If a policy is applied to the 3·25 million people in Hong Kong, a similar policy must apply to white South Africans and people in other countries.

Mr. Janman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very interesting tangential point. His logic and rationale are irrefutable and the House will have taken note of his comments.
When I intervened earlier in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, he was totally incapable of telling the House what the Opposition's view was on the Hong Kong issue, and whether they were in favour of writing a blank cheque or of taking a more illiberal and tighter view of who should be allowed into this country than that taken by the Government. We are still waiting for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to clarify the Opposition's position. I am sure that the electorate is also waiting to hear the Opposition's views.
Good though the changes are, they are too late. The door is being shut after the immigrants have bolted in. I shall give the House some figures, not from the Home Office but from the National Ethnic Research market research company—a Caribbean company which has done extensive research, for commercial reasons, into the ethnic population of Britain. The figure is not the 2·4 million that the Home Office trots out; it is probably much nearer 4·2 million. The company, which is run by a member of the ethnic community, has produced figures to show that one in three children born in London today is of ethnic origin. Its definition of ethnic origin does not include the Arabs and the Turks: it relates only to Indian, Pakistani, Caribbean and African people.
That is a frightening concept for the country to come to terms with. We have already seen the problems of massive Moslem immigration, with the recent events in Parliament square and in Bradford—[Interruption.] I am willing to give way to any hon. Member who stands up and wishes to intervene, but if no one wishes to do so, I suggest that Opposition Members remain silent. That figure of one in three children is true not just of London, but of Leicester, Nottingham, Bradford and many other cities.
I welcome the changes, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that unless we want to create major problems in the decades or the century ahead, we must not only stop immigration but must move to voluntary resettlement to reduce the immigrant population.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I fail to understand how my hon. Friend can make a differentiation on the basis of the colour of someone's skin between one person who is British and another person who is British. To do so is patently racist.

Mr. Janman: I have made no differentiation. We have not had mass immigration from Canada, Germany or the United States. What we have had, and what many British people, and I suspect the majority of my hon. Friend's constituents, object to, is mass immigration from countries which he knows have caused the immigration—India, Pakistan and the Caribbean. It is fatuous to suggest that we are talking simply about colour. We are talking about country of origin, culture and religion. Those factor; are important, and they cause great anxiety to our constituents.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening closely to the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). Is it in order for an hon. Member to address the House in such overtly racist terms?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have a strong impression that the hon. Gentleman is about to finish.

Mr. Janman: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have finished by now had it not been for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).
Those people who defend mass immigration and who are not prepared to find a civilised and practical method of reducing the immigrant population are courting massive civil strife in years to come.

Mr. John Fraser: We have just heard expressed a vicious streak of racism that hon. Members on both sides of the House had hoped was buried some years ago, for the sake of this country.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it grossly offensive that Opposition Members should seek to make such a point, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was speaking from his heart and in the interests of his constituents—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This subject arouses strong emotions on both sides of the House, but I hope that we shall debate it quietly.

Mr. Fraser: In answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), may I say that that vicious streak of racism to which I referred may be sincere but that that does not excuse it.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No, I—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: I was about to say that I believed that many Conservative Members would wish that streak of racism to be buried. It is regrettable that it should have reared its head tonight.
I have only one good thing to say for the Minister. Having pressed him for some time to consolidate the immigration rules, I am glad that he has taken the opportunity to do so. Instead of nine or 10 instruments, we now have a single cat-o'-nine-tails with which to control those who wish to come to the United Kingdom. We thank the Minister, therefore, for the comprehensive nature of the rules, although certainly not for their content.
I suppose that there is a further tribute that one could pay the Minister because under his presidency there has undoubtedly been an increase in the efficiency—and to some extent the courtesy and responsiveness—of Lunar house, not least as a result of the pressure that the Opposition exerted on Ministers last time we debated the immigration rules. That is a good thing, because efficient immigration control is effective immigration control. I do not think that anyone makes any great complaint about that; indeed, long delays and inefficiency can place people in a hopeless position.
What is now happening, however, is that that efficiency, which I welcomed, has gone a stage further, to the point at which it has become a ruthless and summary execution of harsh immigration laws. Immigration officers are using administrative custody to cow prisoners into abandoning their rights and making so-called supervised departures. The Home Office is using methods that attempt to avoid the supervision of judges and magistrates that follows on the bare-faced abrogation of the facilities of Members of Parliament to approach the Minister or his Office. I am surprised that a Minister, who is a Queen's Counsel, should mastermind a policy intended to have the effect of bludgeoning people into leaving the country without access to a judicial system—except by way of judicial review, and that is not easy—or even an immigration appeals system.
The bludgeoning is done by administrative imprisonment—literally detention without trial. One must conclude that the use of detention without trial under the immigration system is a concerted and deliberate Government—directed practice. Let me give two examples of detention without trial. The first involves the use of the notice of intention to deport. Suppose that an immigrant—usually a student—is working part-time. The Government seem to want all the other students to work part-time but not immigrant students. An immigrant student who is found working part-time—a perfectly honourable tradition—[Interruption.] Can the hon. Member who has been making a noise return to the bar, Mr. Deputy Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
That immigrant will not be charged with any offence. He will not have access to a magistrates' court. Instead, a deportation order will be made with considerable rapidity

and he will be detained in administrative custody. The Immigration Act 1988 will then be applied to him. He will be told that he will have no appeal on the merits of the deportation order but only on the power of the Minister to make that order. He will be given the choice between custody and an unwinnable appeal or what is known, under the immigration rules, as a supervised departure. That is what I describe as a use of administrative custody and detention without trial.
The use of custody in connection with deportation orders should be used only rarely. Before any deportation order is made, full consideration should be given to representations made by the person who is affected. Deportation matters should be treated mercifully and understandably.
Deportation is being used not as a form of immigration control but as a hugely disproportionate—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No, I will not. It is being used as a hugely disproportionate, non-judicial and virtually unappealable punishment and sentence. That practice must stop.
The second form of detention without trial is the use of removal powers, as opposed to deportation, where there is at least the possibility of appeal to an immigration adjudicator. An example is of someone who comes here on a visit and then asks to stay as a student. That is common. Indeed, it has been institutionalised by the changes in the rules. If an immigration officer can get some kind of stated intention from that immigrant that at the back of his mind he thought that he would study when he came here, the leave to enter as a visitor is revoked, irrespective of the merits of the situation. The person is then kept in administrative custody and is removed from this country without any form of appeal, except access to the Divisional Court by way of judicial review. That is an abuse of the powers of removal.

Mr. Harry Cohen: That is an excellent point. Is not the position worse than that? Is there not an opportunity for entrapment? The immigration officer may ask, "Would you like to study?" The immigrant may reply, "Yes, I would. I would not mind if I had the chance." That person is trapped, whether he intended to study or not.

Mr. Fraser: That is exactly what happens.
Recently, I came across the case of a person who was supposed to have made an admission that false representations had been made. When I spoke to the immigrant, it was clear that the command of English was not adequate and the conversation was conducted in Yoruba. Because of that conversation in Yoruba, it became clear that the admissions that were supposed to have been made to the immigration officer in English were unsustainable. If there had not been an intervention on that occasion, the system of supervised departure would have been used and the issue of administrative custody—detention without trial—would have been raised. The system is deliberately geared so that where there has been even a minor criminal offence, no charge is brought because, if it were, the immigrant would at least have access to a magistrates court and an application could be made for bail.
I condemn the heartless and brutal refusal of temporary admission by the Minister of State, except in what he calls exceptional compassionate circumstances. A family in my


constituency may have saved for a lifetime to spend thousands of pounds to bring two or three members of the family to this country for a two or three-week holiday. Those people may not be admitted on a temporary basis because the immigration officers say that there are no exceptional compassionate circumstances. That shows heartlessness. In recent changes, the Minister has prevented us, as Members of Parliament, from making direct representations on such matters.
I condemn the failure to humanise the operation of the primary purpose marriage rule, which creates an absurdity. If a spouse wants to remain in the United Kingdom, he or she cannot do so, but if they do not want to remain in the United Kingdom, they can do so. That is the absurdity of the primary purpose rule. The judges cannot make sense of it, and seem to lack the courage to expose its absurdity. However, when Mr. Justice Henry recently eroded the harshness of the primary purpose rule, the Home Office immediately sought to undermine his judgment by writing to the president of the immigration appeal tribunal.
It is clear from the cases now before the courts and the tribunal that incontestably genuine love-match marriages—[Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House happen to believe that love in marriage should not be the subject of scorn, though it might be the subject of consideration by a future chairman of the Conservative party. Genuine love matches are being frustrated by the artificial residence test. The rules are harsh and increasingly are being heartlessly applied. I shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) in the hope that he would clear up some of the anomalies and confusions surrounding Labour's immigration policy. We know that Labour are pledged to repeal the legislation that they themselves enforced when in power, when the number of immigrants entering this country was as high as 80,000 per year. However, he neither did so nor answered the questions that were asked of him.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central contrast with the Government's action in enforcing existing legislation and with the positive rule changes that are the subject of the debate—which I welcome, and which will reduce abuses and allow genuine applicants to enter the country under a fair and firm policy.
I shall give three examples, two from my own constituency, that demonstrate Government policy in action. I believe that I was the first Member of Parliament to organise the entry into this country of a constituent's son by use of DNA testing. I inherited from my opponent in the 1983 general election a large file on a constituent named Mr. G. M. V. Patel and his son Ishaq. Despite exhaustive inquiries in my constituent's home village in India, no evidence could be found to allow his son's entry to Britain, although Mr. Patel was adamant that he was a true son of the family.
I visited the Home Office and discussed the case at great length with the then Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), but no decision to enter could

be reached. I then read about the work of Professor Jeffries at Leicester university, and after I wrote to him the Patel family arranged for Ishaq to undergo DNA testing. There was a long wait while the Home Office evaluated the long odds that were arrived at by Professor Jeffries, and then great joy when it was announced on 24 August 1986 that, although Ishaq was over age, he would be allowed entry. I am grateful for the Home Office's handling of that case, which illustrates that it applies policy in a firm and fair way. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which other cases have been similarly dealt with.
Although I have had no personal experience of Kurds wishing to enter this country from Turkey, the grandson of one of my constituents, an Iranian, was imprisoned in Turkey. My constituent came to see me because her grandson was about to be returned to Iran, where he would face immediate execution. Less than 30 days remained to deal with that case, but with the help of Prisoners Abroad, whose present director is a former hon. Member of the House, Mr. Keith Best, the case was put to the Home Office sufficiently well to allow that individual to enter Britain and to escape the almost certain execution that would have been his fate in Iran. That is another example of the way that the Home Office implements existing legislation fairly and firmly, and allows entry in genuine cases.
My last example is rather different: it concerns Hong Kong, which must be very much in our minds. We must do all in our power to press for Hong Kong's plight to be treated as an international problem, and urge the international community to bring all possible force to bear on China both to improve its internal policies and to respect the treaty drawn up in 1984. We must, however, adopt towards Hong Kong the same policies that we adopt towards all other aspects of immigration, and keep our minds open to the genuine needs of genuine cases.
I have just received a letter from some people whom I visited when I was in Hong Kong two years ago, at a remarkable establishment known as the Home of Loving Faithfulness Fellowship. It is run by two ladies, Wendy and Valerie, who had set up a home to care for severely handicapped Chinese children whose families were unable to look after them. They had arranged for a number of adoptions so that children could leave Hong Kong and find homes elsewhere. The letter says how worried they are about the present situation. Although they have British passports, they feel guilty about that distinguishing them from others with whom they work. One of them has been away for 27 years, and they feel that they have no home in the United Kingdom.
The letter ends:
Our own plans are just to go on doing what we have been doing for 24 years here … in this beautiful little place called Hong Kong.
I ask my hon. Friend to see that as an example of the need to keep an open mind about what is happening in Hong Kong and to put maximum pressure on all other members of the international community to make the Chinese understand exactly how we feel about their domestic situation, and about the importance of their respecting every line of the 1984 treaty.

Mr. Pat Wall: First, let me join in the protest made at the beginning of the debate about the DNA issue—which has been the subject of much


discussion between many of us and the Minister of State—being lumped in with a general discussion on immigration rules. I think that DNA deserves a separate debate apart from the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has obtained for the early hours of Thursday, and I hope that that can be arranged.
The rule changes that we are discussing mark, in most instances, a further tightening of the screw—a process that began with the introduction of visas for five countries and continued with the provisions of the Immigration Act 1988. Now we see a complete ban on nationals of visa countries switching from temporary admission—mainly as visitors—to student status, which further reduces their rights as against those of non-visa nationals. We also see rules aimed at preventing Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin from obtaining asylum in Britain, although, having been nerve-gassed by Iraq and hounded by Iran and Turkey, they are among the most persecuted peoples in the world, and the most deserving of the right of asylum. Under the rules, only Turkish Kurds who escape to a third country can be considered for asylum in Britain, and that must be a tiny handful of those who need it.
I feel that we have a right to relate these rules to our constituency experience, and I wish to raise two specific issues with the Minister. First—although I feel that the issue of Hong Kong should, and undoubtedly will, be debated separately—let me say that we can have little faith in the Government's ability to deal with the problems of three and a third million Chinese in Hong Kong when a woman in Pakistan can obtain neither consistency, compassion nor speed in her application for a visa to visit a grandchild born in Bradford.
The first of the issues with which I want to deal relates to asylum for Sri Lankan Tamils. Last Wednesday my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the following question:
Is the Minister aware that three out of five Tamil refugees who were forcibly returned to Colombo in February 1988 have been tortured? What do the Government intend to do about that?
The Minister replied:
I am sure that if the hon. Lady can substantiate her assertion we will draw it to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government."—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 890.]
It is proper to draw the matter to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government, but is it not time that it received the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office? Are we to believe that they are unaware of the circumstances of the case?
Are the Government unaware of the fact that the five male Tamils arrived separately in the first half of 1987, that all five were refused the right of asylum and the right of appeal, that while awaiting deportation their case was taken to judicial review in the High Court on 25 September 1987 and that their appeal was rejected, that on 12 October 1987 their appeal against that decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal but that it was again reversed on 16 December in the House of Lords? The five were then deported. Under the ridiculous rules that now apply, after their deportation they had the right to appeal against the refusal of asylum in this country.
This case—the first of its type—was heard on 16, 17 and 18 January of this year. The appeal of all five was upheld, but they have still not been given the right by the Home Office to come to this country and take up their asylum. The Minister is aware of the fact that Amnesty International has produced conclusive proof that three of the five were tortured. The Government sent them back to Sri Lanka. They would not allow them to appeal here. They are responsible for the torture of those people.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we do not accept the decision of the adjudicator. We have been give permission to apply for a judicial review of the matter. That is taking place. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes detailed allegations and comments upon the case without waiting for the final decision of the court.

Mr. Wall: I am sure that the three Tamils who were tortured in the gaols of Sri Lanka will be as reassured by the Minister's comments as he hopes that hon. Members will be, but I am sure that they have not been reassured.
In a recent judgment Mr. Justice McCowan found that the Home Office had unfairly treated Miss Amarasingham. Mr. Justice McCowan therefore asked the Home Office to review her case. I hope that the same decision—to continue fighting the case until this girl is deported—will not be taken in her case.
One of the most quoted remarks of Karl Marx is that
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.
I am afraid that I must refer to a farcical case in my constituency. A well-known cricket club in my constituency, Undercliffe cricket club, runs an exchange scheme with Australia and New Zealand and brings over to this country young cricketers from those two countries. The scheme is run by three prominent local business men who are connected with the Undercliffe cricket club. They invite teenage youngsters from Australia and New Zealand to Bradford. They stay with them at their expense and play cricket for that club, at a level depending on their ability on arrival.
In April this year they invited an 18-year-old man called Schofield Hewitt from Barbados. Schofield did not understand that he did not need a visas, so went to the consulate in Barbados, and asked for a visa. When he was told that he did not need a visa he became a little uptight and an official stamped his passport, "Visa not granted". When he arrived at Manchester airport, quite reasonably the immigration officer questioned the stamp on his passport. One of the three Bradford business men was called in as Schofield's sponsor. He explained the situation and, quite reasonably, the immigration officer at Manchester airport agreed to grant temporary admission and transferred the case to Leeds-Bradford airport.
Leeds-Bradford airport claimed that he needed a work permit. He is not Leary Constantine, Manny Martindale or Ernest Achone—all West Indian Test cricketers who made the Bradford league, brought enormous pleasure to Bradford people and raised the level of Yorkshire cricket. By bringing young Schofield Hewitt to Bradford, we were only repaying our debt to West Indian cricket. He did not need a work permit and he was deported, despite the fact that he had a return ticket and did not need a visa and despite the fact that Australian and New Zealand youngsters who were white and came from richer backgrounds were allowed to play for the Undercliffe cricket club.

Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for the second time. I do not want to delay the House, but it is a very great pity that he did not apply to the Department of Employment for a work permit or come to me for advice. Cricketers coming to Britain temporarily need work permits and are given work permits. We deal with them all the time at the beginning of the cricketing season without any problem.

Mr. Wall: My experience as a Member of Parliament was that when I phoned the Home Office and asked for a stop on the case I was told that it was not urgent or important enough. I wrote to the Minister on 25 April and I am still waiting for a reply. When a young, white New Zealander playing rugby for Bradford and Bingley rugby club overstayed, he was told he could stay on without a work permit because he was playing rugby union and he was white.
The case is a mirror of the unfairness of the Home Department and of the completely inefficient way in which it operates. Young Schofield Hewitt was taken to Manchester airport by one of the three members of the Undercliffe cricket club. He was told when to get there and he arrived with his sponsor 10 minutes early, obeying the laws of the land, to discover that the plane had left two hours earlier. That is typical of the way in which the Home Department is run, its inhumanity and its inefficiency.

Mr. Gary Waller: First, it is welcome that a consolidated version of the rules has been published. It is difficult for practitioners to work with rules which have been amended, sometimes in a quite complicated way, nine separate times. I hope that consolidated rules will be published more often.
I wish to say a few words about over-age applicants and the use of discretion by my hon. Friend. Many applicants who are now over age still reside in Bangladesh. Some of the applicants are over age essentially because their applications were turned down 10 or more years ago. In almost every case, their applications were turned down for reasons of family relationships. As the House knows, documentation in Bangladesh is sparse. To some extent, some applicants or their sponsors brought the problem on themselves because there were false claims for tax purposes for families who did not exist.
Be that as it may, because of DNA testing, it is now possible to prove once and for all whether applications at that time were justified. I understand that, of the DNA tests that have been carried out, 86 per cent. have proved conclusively that the applicants were related as claimed.
It is a matter of natural justice, if a claim failed for that and for no other reason, that those applications should be processed as speedily as possible. In some cases, applicants have waited a long time—many years—for their cases to go through. Even since the DNA test was carried out, they have had to wait a considerable period. Applications should be dealt with in such a way that there is a presumption that discretion will be exercised in their favour unless there are clear reasons why that should not be the case.
I hope, therefore, that, although this matter is not spelt out in the rules, my hon. Friend the Minister will exercise his discretion fairly. I would find it difficult to explain to my constituents why, if a claim failed many years ago because of the lack of DNA testing at that time, they

should still be turned down now that it is available. I hope that, when considering such cases in future, my hon. Friend will deal with them compassionately and speedily.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The debate has been redeemed by the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and by the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). One of the most unpleasant aspects of this measure is the way that it brings to the surface all that is basest in our country, and no baser speech could have been made tonight than that by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). It was vile and venomous in every respect. To suggest for one moment that the birth of a black child in this country is somehow a cause of concern is contemptible beyond belief. The Minister must reflect on the emotions and attitudes that measures such as this cause to rise to the surface. It is a squalid and unnecessary measure, and it has been introduced in a shroud of subterfuge from the Home Office.
Two aspects of the changes in the immigration rules give rise to particular concern. The first relates to students and the terms and conditions on which they may enter and remain in this country and the proposals that are contained in the rules in respect of them. It is worth looking at them in some detail. Underlying the thought that seems to have gone into this measure, particularly this aspect of it, is a common misconception by the Government and the Home Office, which is that the whole world is just dying to converge on the United Kingdom and that every black, brown and yellow person wants nothing so much as to live in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] One can see from the instant recognition by Conservative Members that that is seriously what they believe. [Interruption.] They honestly believe that we are going to be swamped. That phrase is resonant, because it was with that phrase that, at a stroke, the Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) sought to capitalise on the racist vote back in 1979. Ever since, we have been living with the legacy of that. Every so often, with an unerring and knee-jerk reaction, the Home Office feels the need to expel from its bowels measures of this nature. It is particularly unpleasant.
I am glad to see the Minister's nose curl up in distaste. My nose and those of many hon. Members curl up in distaste whenever we have to deal with the immigration rules. That happens whenever we are obliged to deal with the Minister and his officials because all these rules stink and the racism behind them stinks. We have good cause to turn up our noses in the way that we do.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The hon. Gentleman talks about the racist Government since 1979. He must admit that since 1979, over 500,000 people have been given permanent settlement in this country, the majority of whom have come from the Indian sub-continent, from the West Indies and from other parts of Asia and Africa, and there have been 30,000 refugees. Is that not a record of which we should be proud? If we were a racist Government, nothing like half a million people would have been allowed permanent settlement since 1979.

Mr. Boateng: Our record, sadly, is not one of which we are entitled to be proud. We have cause to be ashamed of


it in terms of our standing in the world. We must redeem it as a matter of urgency, which is why my hon. Friends and I oppose these rules.
Let us consider the issue of students and the change of status. We say that what is proposed is unfair because of the way in which it discriminates between visa nationals and non-visa nationals. The Government have not produced a shred of evidence to show that there is more likely to be abuse from visa nationals than from non-visa nationals. If there were such evidence, they would be in a position to produce it.
The Minister must know what the impact of these measures will be on genuine students. They will have to leave Britain and return to their countries of origin before being able to apply for entry clearance. They must be aware of the temptation to overstay that that will cause. They must also appreciate the disincentive that measures such as this, being unjust and oppressive, will provide to genuine students to come to this country.
I do not take any heart from the fact that it will be more difficult for students from west Africa and from the Indian sub-continent to come here to study, because all experience—one need only consider the commercial and diplomatic links between our country and those countries, in particular since the movement for colonial freedom began—shows that Britain benefits from students coming here. Despite that, we have imposed a series of increasingly restrictive immigration rules on them, and we have imposed charges in the form of overseas fees that are unconscionable and cause great hardship.
Why have we done that? We have done it to keep out a few—the Home Office does not have the figures—would-be overstayers, a handful of those who would undoubtedly abuse their right and permission for entry. Consider the cost to us of that policy in terms of our reputation overseas, our moral standing and our self-interest resulting from fostering links between students which in turn benefits our commerce and international relations. There is nothing in these measures in relation to students that is in any way warranted. Indeed, the honest student is penalised by the rules. They represent disincentives to comply with them and they are harmful in every way.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the position of honest students who want to come here to study has been prejudiced by those—however few they may be, and I accept what he says about that—who overstay? Will he further agree from his constituency experience, which by now must be considerable, that some stay on and claim to be students, thereby prejudicing the chances of genuine students who want to come here?

Mr. Boateng: I do not demur from that in any way, save to say that the scale of the abuse does not warrant the measure and that the measure goes over the top and is not merited by the problem that is faced.
In perpetuating a discriminatory measure between visa and non-visa countries, the Government are identifying certain countries in west Africa and the Indian sub-continent—and everybody who comes from those countries—as a problem. Hon. Members of all parties must have noticed that as a result of that discriminatory tendency more and more countries that are not

visa-national countries are becoming tainted in the same way. In my constituency experience, I have noticed that those who come from Jamaica are treated as though they are visa nationals. There is therefore a quickening of discrimination and disadvantage in the way in which the rules are administered.
I should like a clear undertaking and assurance from the Minister of State that he will look into the experience of Jamaican nationals currently seeking to come to this country, because there is evidence that they are being treated in a discriminatory way by the immigration service and by the Home Office generally.
Another most important matter is the question of the imposition of a visa requirement on people from Turkey.

Ms. Clare Short: On the subject of students, has my hon. Friend noticed that the new rules contain a provision that male students are allowed to bring their wives and children to this country, provided that they can all maintain themselves, but that female students are not? Does he agree that it is outrageous that talented women from around the world might win scholarships to our country, but that they are not allowed to live with their spouses and children when men are allowed to do so? Does my hon. Friend not suspect that that is illegal under the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Boateng: It is outrageous, sexist and seemingly in contravention of international law. We look forward to hearing from the Minister of State the advice that he has received so that he can assure the House that we are complying with international law in these rules which seem to fly in the face of the relevant convention.
The imposition of visas on people from Turkey has a particular impact on asylum seekers because—this reality is disguised in the Home Office press statement—it is no comfort for people to be told in the statement that
the imposition of a visa requirement will not stop any Turkish national who qualifies for admission under the Immigration Rules from entering the United Kingdom
because, as the Minister of State knows, asylum seekers from abroad are not covered by the immigration rules which make no provision for disputed asylum claims other than those made within the United Kingdom.
I see that the Minister of State is anxious to reply to the points that have been made in the debate so perhaps he will answer this one. One has very much in mind the advice that the Minister has received from his officials that he should seek to speak at the end of the debate. That advice was given to let the Minister off the hook. Well, we do not intend to allow him off the hook so easily.
In conclusion, perhaps the Minister will get his mind around the edition of Echo Sounding, the newsletter that is circulated to all entry clearance staff overseas, which dealt with the position of refugees and asylum seekers, and tell us in what circumstances it will be possible for someone coming from Turkey successfully to obtain asylum in this country. While he is at it, will he also tell us why all callers to Latchmere house today, who were seeking information about Kurdish asylum seekers, were told that the office was not able to give any information and why they had their queries referred to the press office at the Home Office? Will he make a statement about what Kurdish asylum seekers are experiencing at this time, which their lawyers


and friends may not be told? Perhaps he would tell us. It is no use the Minister nodding and smiling benignly because we know what lies behind that face.
In relation to the Hong Kong potential refugees whose fate has been ensnared in the debate, in the past few days Dame Lydia Dunn has said:
I believe that the British people will wish their Government to do the honourable thing.
I have no doubt that that is what the British people wish their Government to do, but in this measure, as in so much else, the Government have failed to do so.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has left me extraordinarily little time in which to answer either his questions or those asked by other hon. Members. In the eight or nine minutes available to me, I shall do my best to answer the serious questions raised in the debate.
I start by saying that it has been a strange debate. From the protestations of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and Brent, South one would have thought that we were introducing earthshaking changes in the immigration rules; we are not. The rule changes that we have laid before the House are modest. They include two extensions of the visa requirement, to Turkey and to Haiti, and two main changes of general application. One represents a tightening of our immigration control—the prohibition on visitors from visa countries switching to being students after entry.
The other change is a relaxation of our immigration control. Needless to say, that has not been mentioned by any Opposition Member in the debate. I refer, of course, to the fact that we are now enabling a woman working here to be joined by her spouse and children under 18, just as wives and children can already come to join a man working in the United Kingdom.
The rule changes that we are introducing in the new consolidated rules will maintain the effectiveness of our immigration control. They are consistent with our policy of operating a system that is both firm and fair.
Doubtless the Opposition will vote against the improvements just as they have voted against all the improvements of the last two years. What then would be their course of action? We now know from the Labour policy review what Labour immigration policy would look like. It would he unfair. It would be full of loopholes. It would encourage bogus applications. It would give comfort to those who are acting illegally and it would lead—

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is speaking, as I understand it, by leave of the House for a second time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Minister is speaking for the first time.

Mr. Renton: That goes to show the total ignorance on these matters. We have wasting of time through filibustering by the Opposition.

Mr. Dobson: Is it not the case that the Minister, in reply to the debate, is supposed to be dealing strictly with the

rules and should not be taking up valuable time that other hon. Members could have used by talking about Labour party policy? He is supposed to be dealing with the rules.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has very little time. I think that we had better get on.

Mr. Renton: This is a disgraceful filibuster by Opposition Members. They know that their immigration policy is full of holes. It would lead to a substantial increase in immigration and they do not want it discussed.
I should like to thank my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) for his support for our immigration rule changes, although he would like them to go further than I would at present.

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Renton: I will not give way. I have only six more minutes to speak and I wish to speak about the rule changes.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his kind remarks about cases that we have dealt with in the Home Office. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for his remarks, particularly about the DNA tests. We shall be debating DNA testing tomorrow night in an Adjournment debate that has been initiated by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). As the issue does not arise in the rule changes, and as time is short, I propose to leave my remarks about it for tomorrow night.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Renton: I want to talk about our intention to introduce—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is outrageous that the Minister is saying that he is leaving his remarks on the DNA testing scheme, which the Government deliberately made part of this debate, for an Adjournment debate that I shall introduce tomorrow night.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Renton: It would seem—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is expecting a ministerial reply to the debate. The Minister has little time left.

Mr. Renton: I have come to the conclusion that the opposition are interested only in wasting time on immigration. They are not prepared seriously to discuss immigration changes. The hon. Member for Bradford, West is the worst offender. He will introduce an Adjournment debate tomorrow on DNA testing and yet he is insisting on talking about matters that are not in the rule changes that are before the House.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has made a good case for the Government providing further time to debate the DNA testing scheme. The matter is part of this debate—it was deliberately made so by the Government—and the Minister has not responded to the remarks which have been made about the scheme. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consult. Mr.


Speaker and to arrange a separate debate at a reasonable hour so that hon. Members can comment on the proposed scheme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Renton: What a disgraceful waste of time by the hon. Gentleman. There is no mention of DNA testing in the rule changes, and he knows it.
As for our intention to introduce a visa requirement for nationals of Turkey, I must tell the House—

Mr. Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House. These are not genuine points of order. The debate can continue for only a few more minutes. I hope that in the limited time that is available to it the House will listen to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Darling: I would not make a spurious point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the start of the debate it was said that Mr. Speaker would read Hansard's report of the debate and would note that serious allegations were made by the Opposition about the true intentions of the Government as revealed in the confidential internal memorandum, which dealt, among other things, with the Government's proposals for charging for DNA testing. The memorandum makes it clear that a Minister intended tonight to deal with this matter. These matters are crucial—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters for debate. At the beginning of the debate the hon. Gentleman raised a point of order. I doubt whether it is a matter for Mr. Speaker, but the occupant of the Chair at the time undertook to report to Mr. Speaker what he had said.

Mr. Renton: The need for introducing visas for Turks has arisen primarily for operational reasons. The number and proportion of Turkish passengers refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom have been rising for several years and have now reached significant levels. We have experienced a sharp rise in the number of Turks claiming asylum at the ports of entry. Today alone we had 243 applications for political asylum by Turks at our airports. That, in one day, is four times the total for 1987.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Among the applicants there may be some genuine refugees. Every one of them has to be given a detailed interview, and that takes a great deal of time. Without doubt there are some economic migrants among the new and large total and there is a possibility that the genuine refugees will not have a chance of being examined and interviewed nearly quickly enough.
There are those who say that we should not talk about economic migrants. Since 1 May—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business)

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 170.

Division No. 255]
[1.45 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Loyden, Eddie


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McAllion, John


Armstrong, Hilary
McAvoy, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McFall, John


Barron, Kevin
McKelvey, William


Battle, John
McWilliam, John


Beckett, Margaret
Madden, Max


Beith, A. J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Marek, Dr John


Blair, Tony
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Boateng, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Meale, Alan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Morgan, Rhodri


Clay, Bob
Morley, Elliott


Clelland, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cohen, Harry
Mullin, Chris


Corbyn, Jeremy
Murphy, Paul


Cousins, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cummings, John
Pendry, Tom


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pike, Peter L.


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Darling, Alistair
Quin, Ms Joyce


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Redmond, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Rooker, Jeff


Dixon, Don
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Dobson, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Eastham, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Fatchett, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Sheerman, Barry


Fisher, Mark
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Flynn, Paul
Short, Clare


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fyfe, Maria
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Galbraith, Sam
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


George, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steinberg, Gerry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Strang, Gavin


Gordon, Mildred
Straw, Jack


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Turner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Vaz, Keith


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wall, Pat


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wallace, James


Illsley, Eric
Walley, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Janner, Greville
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Allen McKay and


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Frank Cook.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Allason, Rupert
Bowis, John


Amess, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amos, Alan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burns, Simon


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, David
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Chris


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carrington, Matthew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carttiss, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cash, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul






Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David


Churchill, Mr
Moate, Roger


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Moss, Malcolm


Cormack, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Couchman, James
Neubert, Michael


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Norris, Steve


Day, Stephen
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Dorrell, Stephen
Oppenheim, Phillip


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Page, Richard


Dover, Den
Paice, James


Durant, Tony
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Dykes, Hugh
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fallon, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forman, Nigel
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Redwood, John


Freeman, Roger
Renton, Tim


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gregory, Conal
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hanley, Jeremy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Harris, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hawkins, Christopher
Speed, Keith


Hayes, Jerry
Speller, Tony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heddle, John
Squire, Robin


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Steen, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Stern, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stevens, Lewis


Hordern, Sir Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howard, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stokes, Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Summerson, Hugo


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hunter, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jack, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Janman, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Jessel, Toby
Tracey, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tredinnick, David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Trippier, David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Knapman, Roger
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Waller, Gary


Latham, Michael
Ward, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lightbown, David
Watts, John


Lilley, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Ray


Lord, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Maclean, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Maples, John
Wood, Timothy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)



Maude, Hon Francis
Tellers for the Noes:


Miller, Sir Hal
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Mills, Iain
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Question accordingly negatived.

NHS Reform

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Sir Peter Hordern: During the past 20 years there have been two reforms of the National Health Service—in its administration rather than in its substance. When the Government's proposals for the present reforms were produced, they deserved more serious consideration than they have subsequently received. Judging by some of the hysterical reaction to the Government's proposals, one would think that the Government were out to dismember the NHS completely.
I very much regret the tone as well as the substance of some of the reactions. However, those who are in the front line of the reforms have reacted somewhat differently. A substantial number of hospitals and large practices have expressed interest in going it alone and in accepting proposals. When the nature of the proposals is known and the propaganda has blown over, the proposed reforms will be judged on their merits and found acceptable.
Because the NHS is a national service free at the point of delivery, many people think that it is wrong to attempt reform, because reform represents some kind of threat to the principle of the NHS. However, the shortcomings of the NHS are there for all to see. There are long waiting lists for operations, there are shabby practices and hospitals and overworked general practitioners and hospital doctors. We have only to consider the outcry whenever it is proposed to close an old hospital—even if it is out of date and inefficient—and to open a new one in its place to understand how hard it is to win acceptance for any reform of the NHS which involves change. The general impression seems to be that there is nothing wrong with the system which a lot more money would not put right. That impression is fostered not simply by the Labour party, as we might expect, but by the British Medical Association, which is a professional body manned by professionals.
It is a mistake to expect too much of any trade union which exists for the benefit of its members. However, until I saw its recent advertisement, I had thought that the BMA would conduct itself in a professional manner. Of course, history is against any such hope. We need only remember that the BMA was wholly opposed to the NHS when it was founded. However, by listening to it now, we might think that it had invented it.
Every doctor must take the Hippocratic oath, the most serious professional pledge in existence and one which all doctors aspire to live up to. What was Hippocrates like? Harvey's Oxford Companion to Classical Literature says this of him:
Hippocrates supported a true scientific spirit, insisted on the permanence of the relation of cause to effect and the necessity of careful observation of medical facts. He was regarded by his contemporaries and successors as a perfect type of physician, learned, humane, calm, pure of mind, grave and reticent.
I do not think that any of those adjectives could be applied to the BMA today.
The BMA's advertisement which appeared in The Observer of 4 June states that the Government want the general practitioners' practices with more than 11,000 patients to take over budgets, including the purchase of hospital treatment. It states that GPs would have to


negotiate contracts with hospitals, shop around for the best buys and plan their budgets accordingly. The BMA would not have published that advertisement unless it meant people to think that doctors would be forced to take over budgets and negotiate contracts. Nowhere is there any suggestion that it is entirely up to large practices to run their own practices. Similarly, there is no suggestion that, having done so, they cannot do otherwise. I have never heard of the freedom to adopt an alternative course described as having to negotiate contracts, as though the freedom to escape a centrally controlled system was a challenge to the state.
Perhaps one should dismiss all this talk as hyperbole, but there is worse. The advertisement said:
Since there is no new money in the system, GPs will be expected to take on the burden of rationing the scarce resources.
That raises a different issue, for there are no qualifying words about real increases, allowing for increases in inflation—just a simple statement that there is no new money in the system.
The House should take this seriously. What is the truth? The public expenditure White Paper states in paragraph 9 on page 5:
Public expenditure on the NHS is planned to increase in 1989–90 by £1·3 billion compared with the estimated outturn for 1988–89. When the effects of reduced employer's superannuation contributions are taken into account this amounts to a cash increase of nearly £1·6 billion. In addition health authorities' new cost improvement plans are expected to provide a further £25 million. The total increase in resources will thereby amount to some £1·8 billion, equivalent to a cash increase of 9½ per cent.
Paragraph 12 tells us that further increases are planned in 1990–91 and 1991–92, increasing the NHS total gross expenditure to more than £23 billion—an expected 44 per cent. real terms increase on 1978–79. That is all that I need to quote to demolish what the BMA said about there being no increase in cash.
What conclusion can one draw from that deceitful advertisement—for that is what it is? We should remember that the Government have no money of their own. Increases in spending can be made only through increases in revenue from taxation, and that can come only through the hard work and enterprise of the British people. So when the BMA says "no new money" it diminishes us all because it is an especially damaging untruth.
The BMA says that our general practitioners are under pressure and that our young hospital doctors are having to work unreasonably long hours, but that has always been the case. Are there not enough people in the NHS? It is worth reminding ourselves of the progress that has been made. In 1961, 575,000 people were employed in the NHS; in 1988, the figure was 1·22 million. One in 18 families in the land has someone who works for the Health Service. That is a very large figure, and makes the Health Service the largest employer in the western world. We may not have enough general practitioners, but we have 25,000 now compared with 21,000 10 years ago—an increase of nearly 20 per cent. The average list that doctors must manage has decreased from 2,312 to 2,020, which is a 12 per cent. reduction. Last year in our hospitals, 5·3 million patients were treated, which is 1 million more than in 1978. Last year we treated 7·6 million out-patients, as compared with 6·7 million in 1978. On any test, whether immunisation uptake or the continued fall in the

standardised mortality ratio for a wide variety of potentially avoidable causes of death, there has been an improvement over the position of 10 years ago.
All the evidence shows a substantial improvement in the services of the NHS. It does not show some of the faults of the system which are inevitable in an organisation as large as the NHS. Although it may be the largest service in the western world, it probably has the longest waiting lists. I speak from the experience of some years as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I cannot recall a year when the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the National Audit Office did not discover an outstanding example of waste. Until recently, the Department had no idea how many people were recruited for the Health Service or what they did until two years after the event. I can remember an occasion after the review and reform of 1973 when 50,000 administrators were taken on in the space of 18 months, but that was not discovered until two years later.
The National Audit Office's recent reports show that 28 per cent. of operating theatres available during weekdays were unstaffed—23 per cent. because of cancelled sessions. There were wide variations between districts, but when the districts were taken together it was found that only 50 to 60 per cent. of available theatre time was used. Had the theatre time been properly used in the five authorities examined, another 11,000 operations could have taken place. In another report, 20 per cent. of districts confirmed that at least 40 per cent. of the land that they owned could have been disposed of. Another report on the need to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical care showed that there were marked variations between health authorities in the number of deaths due to avoidable factors.
Such faults are inevitable in any large system. They show the need for greater autonomy within the system and greater responsibility, too. I do not believe that anyone reading and understanding those reports could believe that the Health Service is not ripe for review. I deeply regret the fact that the reviews have not been treated as seriously as they should have been, by the BMA in particular.
One has only to consider the cost of drugs, which has increased from £805 million in 1978–79 to £2,167 million in 1987–88—about 10 per cent. of the National Health Service budget. Yet the doctors may not even know the cost of the drugs that they prescribe, which is why prescription costs vary by as much as 50 per cent. from one practice to another. How can that be right? Under the Government's proposals, the district health authorities and the larger practices will be able to make contracts with health authorities outside their own areas, which will make the hospitals increasingly customer-orientated, rather than producer-orientated as they are at present.
It might be better still if GPs could refer their patients wherever they want, but that is less important than the other considerations that I have mentioned.
It is never right to accept waste, especially in a service as large and important as the National Health Service. Yet waste is endemic in the system. The reason why it makes sense to allow some competition for services and to set benchmarks is not that that will save money—because there will be more money—but because it will ensure that the money is spent to better effect. Advances in medicine and the growing number of elderly people will continue to place increasing demands on the Health Service and we must meet those demands as best we can.
We in this House have a duty to ensure that public money is properly spent for the benefit of the public. Forty years after the foundation of the Health Service, it is clear that waste and inefficiency have occurred too often and on too great a scale to allow them to continue unchecked. That is why the Government's proposals should be supported, and the BMA's campaign rejected.
In a day or two, the council of the BMA is to decide whether to accept the proposals for the doctors' contracts. I wish that the decision could have been reached in an atmosphere of calm study of the proposals, rather than being the victim of a thoroughly salacious and disgraceful advertising campaign.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The House owes a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) for introducing such an excellent debate. The record will show that, at 2 o'clock in the morning, the House was unusually full for an Adjournment debate, because of the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—he has now left the Chamber—and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), whom I take for granted! This is a sign of how strongly the House feels about this subject.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. Much misunderstanding has been created about "Working for Patients". I agree that some of it has been deliberately created and that it is unhelpful to a constructive and rational discussion of our proposals.
It may help my hon. Friends if I dwell on five basic misunderstandings about the White Paper, two of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. The first is the false claim put about that doctors will have less time to deal with their patients. That cannot be mathematically true in total. There is a fixed number of patients. It seems likely, given the number of doctors in training, that the number of doctors in general practice will increase in the coming years. As my hon. Friend said, there has been a significant increase in the number of doctors. That must mean that, rather than increasing, the average list size may decrease. The implication is that doctors will not have less time on average to deal with patients but will perhaps have a little more. Some doctors will choose to gain more patients and, because of their energy, performance and reputation, will gain more at the margin. That must mean that other doctors in the locality will lose patients. That is right. The contract will soon be discussed by the Conference of Local Medical Committees and it is important that it carefully consider the general principle running through the contract, that we intend to reward hard work and performance in a common aim, which is shared with the Government—better treatment of patients.
Secondly, it is said by some that patients will be sent around the country in search of operations. A member of the British Medical Association used a colourful phrase—he said that patients would be sent around the country in their pyjamas with cheques pinned to their breast pockets: that would be money following the patient. It is nonsense. It is important to change the funding

mechanism and the flow of money in the system in such a way that money can follow sensible patient referrals. In other words, the doctor, patient, district health authority and receiving hospital all agree that it is in the best interests of a patient for elective surgery or cold surgery—for example, a hip replacement or operations on varicose veins or a hernia—if that patient is sent a little further than the district general hospital to get the operation done more quickly. We have no intention of sending patients against their will all over the country or excessive distances for urgent operations. This measure in the White Paper is designed to reduce the disparity in waiting times throughout the country and to help patients.
Thirdly, it has been said that patients will be denied drugs that they need from their general practitioner, not only in month 11 or 12 but in month one. That is untrue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it plain that we have no intention of cash-limiting general practitioners, either individually or collectively. We will introduce what we call indicative drug budgets. They will provide a guideline for general practitioners as to how much they should prescribe. Our proposals for indicative drug budgets are a sensible way, in co-operation with the general practitioner, of exercising better control, because over-prescribing—particularly of tranquillisers—is not in the best interests of patients.
Fourthly, it is suggested that hospitals will opt out of the Health Service and that the Government are about to dismember the NHS. That too is absolutely untrue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it plain that we are not about to privatise the Health Service. It will remain free at the point of delivery and financed mainly by taxation. Hospitals will not opt out by choosing self-governing status but will simply have delegated to them greater responsibility for managing their own affairs.
Earlier today, I attended together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister a successful conference at Church house, Westminster, for those interested in self-government. The large audience was drawn from the 200 hospitals and other units that expressed interest in self-government. The conference was designed to allow my right hon. and learned Friend an opportunity to explain his ideas in more detail.
Our proposals are not about opting out or about dismantling the Health Service but concern delegating to those who work most closely with patients, responsibility for employment, pay, and the further development of the service. That must be in the patient's interest. As self-governing hospitals will no longer be subject to interference from regional health authorities or from the Government, they will have no one but themselves to blame if a mistake is made. We want them to develop a sense of responsibility and pride in running their own hospitals. We will finance them with a fair share of taxpayers' money, but we want them to bring their services closer to the community in every sense.
Fifthly, it has been suggested that the Health Service will go in search only of what are called profitable patients, and that unprofitable patients—whatever that might mean—will be denied care by general practitioners or hospitals. That too is nonsense. We are not moving to the American system of cash passing between the patient and the provider of health care. We have set our face against that. As far as the patient is concerned, ours is a cashless system,


free at the point of delivery and financed from general taxation. Therefore, the concept of a profitable or unprofitable patient is not one that we recognise.
Let me briefly explain why it is nonsense to claim that "unprofitable patients" will be denied proper care. We are so changing the capitation fees payable to general practitioners for providing services to patients that they will rise with the age of the patient. That will encourage GPs to add to their lists and to care for the elderly. Also, the indicative drug budgets, which will affect the majority of general practitioners—those who do not choose to control their own practice budgets—will be specifically tailored to reflect the age profile of the patient list, the relative health of the patients on that list, and their special drug needs and requirements.
Therefore, how can it be claimed that doctors will in any way have a disincentive to take on patients and a real incentive to deny care to those with special health needs? Such a claim is nonsense and a calumny against the medical profession whose own ethics, as my hon. Friend clearly stated, compel the doctor to care for any patient, whatever his or her condition.
As to hospitals, our critics fail to understand or to take on board the exciting concept of dividing responsibility between the purchaser of health care—the district health authority or the general practitioner's practice budget—and the health care provider, which is the hospital. The district health authority, as the guardian of the health requirements of all existing and prospective patients living within its province, will be responsible for the care of every individual. It will be the responsibility of the health authority—properly funded, under our new system of resource allocation—to ensure that hospital care is available locally for the core services that we shall define more carefully and closely in the months to come.
Let me list the issues on which I hope the medical profession and the Department of Health are agreed. First, I hope that we are all agreed on one aim in the reform of the Health Service—which, after all, has not enjoyed as

radical a series of necessary reforms as that which we propose in 40 years. We have a common aim: to improve patient information and choice. We shall do that by giving doctors the right to advertise, ensuring that GPs provide existing and prospective patients with more information and enabling patients to change doctors more easily.
Secondly, we want to improve the quantity and quality of health care. We want to improve the quantity by continuing the rate of growth in real expenditure on the Health Service. My hon. Friend rightly said that the Government had increased expenditure by some 40 per cent., which was reflected in the number of doctors and front-line staff, and the Government will continue to increase the amount of real resources.
Quality is also vitally important. I hope that the medical profession agrees with us that medical audit—and, indeed, the use of contracts between the purchaser and the provider of health care, stipulating the minimum standards required—will serve the patient's interests.
Finally, I hope that the medical profession agrees with our desire for a drive for even greater efficiency, at the same time as an increase in resources. We have a relatively efficient health-care system compared with many other western European nations: we devote a slightly smaller proportion of our GDP to our Health Service than some of those countries devote to theirs, but we provide a good service. We can and should do better, however, and one of the key elements of an improved performance is the delegation of responsibility to self-governing hospitals, GP practice budget-holders and the reformed, slimline, business-like district health authorities and family practitioner committees.
I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that cooler heads and reason will prevail, and that we will all work together —both sides of the House, the medical profession and the Department of Health—to achieve our long-term and most important aim: to put patients first, and to improve the quantity and quality of health care.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Two o'clock.